Contrast-Enhanced Abdominal MRI for Suspected Appendicitis: How We Do It

Simulated learning environment for diagnosis of appendicitis and other causes of abdominal pain in pregnant patients using MRI

OBJECTIVES

Acute appendicitis is a common surgical condition which is usually diagnosed on CT in adult patients, though MRI is frequently used as a first-line diagnostic test in pregnant patients due to its lack of ionizing radiation and superior ability to visualize the appendix compared to ultrasound. Interpretation of abdominal MRI exams in pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis is an important skill in clinical practice, but one that is difficult to become proficient at due to its relative infrequence, even in a high-volume practice.

METHODS

We created a simulation-based platform built on an online radiology viewing platform (Pacsbin) for training residents and abdominal imaging fellows to interpret pregnant appendicitis MRI exams, which we made publicly available for use by trainees at any institution (forms.office.com/r/FYyq06rw0v). This platform was used to train our 2024-2025 abdominal imaging fellows (N=8), and we collected pre- and post-intervention survey data which included level of confidence (Likert scale,1-5) in approaching these studies.

RESULTS

We discuss and illustrate the content of our case set, including various teaching points we emphasize throughout the exercise. Among our eight body imaging fellows, the level of confidence in approaching pregnant appendicitis MRI studies after the intervention increased from 2.4 ± 0.7 (range 1-3) to 3.6 ± 0.5 (range 3-4; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Simulation-based training sets such as this have the potential to supplement traditional approaches in radiology education across a broad range of radiology subspecialities and imaging modalities.

Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography and ultrasound for the diagnosis of female pelvic pathology

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging compared with computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) when evaluating for five common pelvic pathologies among women presenting to the emergency department (ED) with right lower quadrant abdominal pain.

METHODS

This prospective, single-center study was conducted at an academic ED as a sub-analysis of a direct comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CT and MR in the evaluation of appendicitis. Patients were eligible for participation in the parent study if they were at least 12 years old and had a CT performed for evaluation of possible appendicitis. In the current study, only female patients who also underwent pelvic US were included. Three radiologists independently interpreted each MR examination specifically for the presence of pelvic pathology, knowing that patients had initially undergone imaging evaluation for possible appendicitis. The determination of an independent expert panel of two radiologists and one emergency physician based on surgical pathology, comprehensive chart review, clinical information, and follow-up phone calls served as the reference standard. Test characteristics of MR, CT, and US were calculated based on this; the main outcome measure was the summary sensitivity and specificity of MR versus CT and US.

RESULTS

Forty-one participants were included with a mean age of 27.6 ± 10.8 years. The MR consensus interpretation had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 57.1% (CI 38.8-75.5%) and 97.2% (CI 94.7-99.6%) respectively, for detecting any of the five pelvic pathologies. By comparison, CT exhibited sensitivity and specificity of 66.7% (CI 50.0-83.5%) and 98.3% (CI 96.4-100.0%) while it was 64.3% (CI 46.5-82.0%) and 97.7% (CI 95.6-99.9%) for US, respectively. No significant differences were identified when comparing these modalities. Overall, Fleiss' kappa interrater reliability value for MR interpretation was 0.75, corresponding to substantial agreement between the three readers.

CONCLUSIONS

In women who might otherwise undergo multiple imaging tests to evaluate gastrointestinal versus pelvic pathologies, our data suggest that MR may be an acceptable first-line imaging test.

Abdominal fellowship-trained versus generalist radiologist accuracy when interpreting MR and CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of generalist radiologists working in a community setting against abdominal radiologists working in an academic setting for the interpretation of MR when diagnosing acute appendicitis among emergency department patients.

METHODS

This observational study examined MR image interpretation (non-contrast MR with diffusion-weighted imaging and intravenous contrast-enhanced MR) from a prospectively enrolled cohort at an academic hospital over 18 months. Eligible patients had an abdominopelvic CT ordered to evaluate for appendicitis and were > 11 years old. The reference standard was a combination of surgery and pathology results, phone follow-up, and chart review. Six radiologists blinded to clinical information, three each from community and academic practices, independently interpreted MR and CT images in random order. We calculated test characteristics for both individual and group (consensus) diagnostic accuracy then performed Chi-square tests to identify any differences between the subgroups.

RESULTS

Analysis included 198 patients (114 women) with a mean age of 31.6 years and an appendicitis prevalence of 32.3%. For generalist radiologists, the sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 93.8% (84.6-98.0%) and 88.8% (82.2-93.2%) for MR and 96.9% (88.7-99.8%) and 91.8% (85.8-95.5%) for CT. For fellowship-trained radiologists, the sensitivity and specificity were 96.9% (88.2-99.5%) and 89.6% (82.8-94%) for MR and 98.4% (90.5-99.9%) and 93.3% (87.3-96.7%) for CT. No statistically significant differences were detected between radiologist groups (p = 1.0, p = 0.53, respectively) or when comparing MR to CT (p = 0.21, p = 0.17, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

MR is a reliable, radiation-free imaging alternative to CT for the evaluation of appendicitis in community-based generalist radiology practices.

KEY POINTS

• There was no significant difference in MR image interpretation accuracy between generalist and abdominal fellowship-trained radiologists when evaluating sensitivity (p = 1.0) and specificity (p = 0.53). • There was no significant difference in accuracy comparing MR to CT imaging for diagnosing appendicitis for either sensitivity (p = 0.21) or specificity (p = 0.17). • With experience, generalist radiologists enhanced their MR interpretation accuracy as demonstrated by improved interpretation sensitivity (OR 2.89 CI 1.44-5.77, p = 0.003) and decreased mean interpretation time (5 to 3.89 min).

Fast acquisition abdominal MRI study for the investigation of suspected acute appendicitis in paediatric patients

Objectives

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of fast acquisition MRI in suspected cases of paediatric appendicitis presenting to a tertiary referral hospital.

Materials and methods

A prospective study was undertaken between May and October 2017 of 52 children who presented with suspected appendicitis and were referred for an abdominal ultrasound. All patients included in this study received both an abdominal ultrasound and five-sequence MRI consisting of axial and coronal gradient echo T2 scans, fat-saturated SSFSE and a diffusion-weighted scan. Participants were randomised into groups of MRI with breath-holds or MRI with free breathing. A patient satisfaction survey was also carried out. Histopathology findings, where available, were used as a gold standard for the purposes of data analysis. Statistical analysis was performed, and p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Ultrasound had a sensitivity and specificity of 25% and 92.9%, respectively. MRI with breath-hold had a sensitivity and specificity of 81.8% and 66.7%, respectively, whilst MRI with free breathing was superior with sensitivity and specificity of 92.3% and 84.2%, respectively. MRI with free breathing was also more time efficient (p < 0.0001). Group statistics were comparable (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The use of fast acquisition MRI protocols, particularly free breathing sequences, for patients admitted with suspected appendicitis can result in faster diagnosis, treatment and discharge. It also has a statistically significant diagnostic advantage over ultrasound. Additionally, the higher specificity of MR can reduce the number of negative appendectomies performed in tertiary centres.

MRI of Acute Gynecologic Conditions

Although usually not a first-line imaging modality in the setting of acute pelvic pain, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is able to depict and characterize a wide range gynecologic diagnoses with high accuracy. Lack of ionizing radiation renders MRI particularly useful for assessment of pregnant women and children. Furthermore, inherent high soft-tissue resolution of MRI allows accurate diagnosis without intravenous contrast use, which is advantageous for patients with renal insufficiency and pregnant patients. Familiarity with the typical MRI appearance of various acute gynecologic conditions helps establish the correct diagnosis. This article reviews the common MRI findings of acute gynecologic processes, in both pregnant and nonpregnant patients. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1291-1309.

Cost Comparison of Ultrasound Versus MRI to Diagnose Adolescent Female Patients Presenting with Acute Abdominal/Pelvic Pain Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost of ultrasound (US) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using time-driven activity-based costing in adolescent female patients with suspected appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Process maps were created using data from electronic medical record review and patient shadowing for adolescent female patients undergoing US or noncontrast MRI exams of the abdomen and pelvis for suspected appendicitis. Capacity cost rates for all personnel, equipment, facilities, and supplies in each exam pathway were established from institutional accounting data. The cost of each process step was determined by multiplying step-specific capacity cost rates by the mean time required to complete the step. Total pathway costs for US and MRI were computed by summing the costs of all steps through each pathway, and a direct cost comparison was made between the two modalities.

RESULTS

Process maps for US and MRI pathways were generated from 231 and 52 patient encounters, respectively. Patients undergoing US exams followed one of six pathways depending on exam order (abdomen versus pelvis performed first) and whether additional time was needed for bladder filling. Mean total US pathway time was 91 minutes longer than for MRI (US = 166 minutes; MRI = 75 minutes). Total MRI pathway cost was $209.97 compared to a mean US cost of $258.33 (range = $163.21-$293.24).

CONCLUSION

MRI can be a faster and less costly alternative to US for evaluating suspected appendicitis in adolescent female patients. While precise costs will vary by institution, MRI may be a viable and at times preferable alternative to US in this patient population.

Pregnancy and appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical use of MRI in diagnosis of appendicitis in pregnant women

Background

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical use of MRI for the evaluation of acute appendicitis during pregnancy.

Methods

The searches were conducted by two independent researchers (MK, MS) to find the relevant studies published from 1/1/2009 until end of 30/12/2018. We searched for published literature in the English language in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASETM via Ovid, The Cochrane Library, and Trip database. For literature published in other languages, we searched national databases (Magiran and SID), KoreaMed, and LILACS. The keywords used in the search strategy are Pregnancy [MeSH], Pregnant [MeSH] OR-Magnetic resonance imaging [MeSH] OR-Appendicitis [MeSH] OR-Ultrasound, [MeSH] OR, imaging, MRI [MeSH] OR"،" and Right lower quadrant pain [MeSH]. The risk of bias of every article was evaluated by using QUADAS-2. On the basis of the results from the 2 × 2 tables, pooled measures for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curves (AUC) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the DerSimonian Lair methodology.

Results

As many as 1164 studies were selected. After analyzing the correspondence of the studies with the required criteria, 19 studies were selected for the final review. For appendicitis in pregnancy, the MRI sensitivity was 91.8% at the 95% confidence interval of (95% CI 87.7-94.9%). At the confidence interval of 95%, the specificity was 97.9% (95% CI 0.97.2-100%). The risk of bias in the studies conducted was measured using the QUADAS-2 tool.

Conclusion

MRI has high sensitivity and specificity (91.8%, 97.9% respectively) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant patients with clinically suspected appendicitis. It is an excellent imaging technique in many instances, which does not expose a fetus, or the mother, to ionizing radiation, making it an excellent option for pregnant patients with suspected acute appendicitis.

Tales from the Night:: Emergency MR Imaging in Pediatric Patients after Hours

Overnight in-house radiology has rapidly become an important part of contemporary practice models, and is increasingly the norm in pediatric radiology. MR imaging is an indispensable first-line and problem-solving tool in the pediatric population. This has led to increasingly complex MR imaging being performed "after hours" on pediatric patients. This article reviews the factors that have led to widespread overnight subspecialty radiology and the associated challenges for overnight radiologists, and provides an overview of up-to-date imaging techniques and imaging findings of the most common indications for emergent MR imaging in the pediatric population.

Prospective evaluation of MRI compared with CT for the etiology of abdominal pain in emergency department patients with concern for appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) is commonly used in the Emergency Department (ED) to evaluate patients with abdominal pain, but exposes them to ionizing radiation, a possible carcinogen. MRI does not utilize ionizing radiation and may be an alternative.

PURPOSE

To compare the sensitivity of MRI and CT for acute abdominopelvic ED diagnoses.

STUDY TYPE

Prospective, observational cohort.

POPULATION

ED patients ≥12 years old and undergoing CT for possible appendicitis.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

1.5 T MRI, including T₁ -weighted, T₂ -weighted, and diffusion-weighted imaging sequences.

ASSESSMENT

Three radiologists independently interpreted each MRI and CT image set separately and blindly, using a standard case report form. Assessments included likelihood of appendicitis, presence of an alternative diagnosis, and likelihood that the alternative diagnosis was causing the patient's symptoms. An expert panel utilized chart review and follow-up phone interviews to determine all final diagnoses. Times to complete image acquisition and image interpretation were also calculated.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Sensitivity was calculated for each radiologist and by consensus (≥2 radiologists in agreement) and are reported as point estimates with 95% confidence intervals. Two-sided hypothesis tests comparing the sensitivities of the three image types were conducted using Pearson's chi-squared test with the traditional significance level of P = 0.05.

RESULTS

There were 15 different acute diagnoses identified on the CT/MR images of 113 patients. Using individual radiologist interpretations, the sensitivities of noncontrast-enhanced MRI (NCE-MR), contrast-enhanced MR (CE-MR), and CT for any acute diagnosis were 77.0% (72.6-81.4%), 84.2% (80.4-88.0%), and 88.7% (85.5-92.1%). Sensitivity of consensus reads was 82.0% (74.9-88.9%), 87.1% (81.0-93.2%), 92.2% (87.3-97.1%), respectively. There was no difference in sensitivities between CE-MR and CT by individual (P = 0.096) or consensus interpretations (P = 0.281), although NCE-MR was inferior to CT in both modes of analysis (P < 0.001, P = 0.031, respectively).

DATA CONCLUSION

The sensitivity of CE-MR was similar to CT when diagnosing acute, nontraumatic abdominopelvic pathology in our cohort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1651-1658.

MRI of the Nontraumatic Acute Abdomen: Description of Findings and Multimodality Correlation

Obtaining a specific diagnosis in the nontraumatic acute abdomen can be clinically challenging, because a wide range of disease processes affecting a number of different organ systems may have very similar presentations. Although computed tomography and ultrasound examination are the imaging tests most commonly used to evaluate the acute abdomen, MRI can often offer comparable diagnostic performance, and may be considered when other modalities are equivocal, suboptimal, or contraindicated. In some circumstances, MRI is emerging as an appropriate first-line imaging test.

Prospective Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of MR Imaging versus CT for Acute Appendicitis

Purpose To compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with that of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in emergency department (ED) patients. Materials and Methods This was an institutional review board-approved, prospective, observational study of ED patients at an academic medical center (February 2012 to August 2014). Eligible patients were nonpregnant and 12- year-old or older patients in whom a CT study had been ordered for evaluation for appendicitis. After informed consent was obtained, CT and MR imaging (with non-contrast material-enhanced, diffusion-weighted, and intravenous contrast-enhanced sequences) were performed in tandem, and the images were subsequently retrospectively interpreted in random order by three abdominal radiologists who were blinded to the patients' clinical outcomes. Likelihood of appendicitis was rated on a five-point scale for both CT and MR imaging. A composite reference standard of surgical and histopathologic results and clinical follow-up was used, arbitrated by an expert panel of three investigators. Test characteristics were calculated and reported as point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Analysis included images of 198 patients (114 women [58%]; mean age, 31.6 years ± 14.2 [range, 12-81 years]; prevalence of appendicitis, 32.3%). The sensitivity and specificity were 96.9% (95% CI: 88.2%, 99.5%) and 81.3% (95% CI: 73.5%, 87.3%) for MR imaging and 98.4% (95% CI: 90.5%, 99.9%) and 89.6% (95% CI: 82.8%, 94.0%) for CT, respectively, when a cutoff point of 3 or higher was used. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 5.2 (95% CI: 3.7, 7.7) and 0.04 (95% CI: 0, 0.11) for MR imaging and 9.4 (95% CI: 5.9, 16.4) and 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.06) for CT, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the optimal cutoff point to maximize accuracy was 4 or higher, at which point there was no difference between MR imaging and CT. Conclusion The diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging was similar to that of CT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI Versus CT for the Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis in Children and Young Adults

OBJECTIVE

Appendicitis is frequently diagnosed in the emergency department, most commonly using CT. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI with that of contrast-enhanced CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adolescents when interpreted by abdominal radiologists and pediatric radiologists.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Our study included a prospectively enrolled cohort of 48 patients (12-20 years old) with nontraumatic abdominal pain who underwent CT and MRI. Fellowship-trained abdominal and pediatric radiologists reviewed all CT and MRI studies in randomized order, blinded to patient outcome. Likelihood for appendicitis was rated on a 5-point scale (1, definitely not appendicitis; 5, definitely appendicitis) for CT, the unenhanced portion of the MRI, and the entire contrast-enhanced MRI study. ROC curves were generated and AUC compared for each scan type for all six readers and then stratified by radiologist type. Image test characteristics, interrater reliability, and reading times were compared.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity were 85.9% (95% CI, 76.2-92.7%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 89.7-96.7%) for unenhanced MRI, 93.6% (95% CI, 85.6-97.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI, 90.2-97%) for contrast-enhanced MRI, and 93.6% (95% CI, 85.6-97.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI, 90.2-97%) for CT. No difference was found in the diagnostic accuracy or interpretation time when comparing abdominal radiologists to pediatric radiologists (CT, 3.0 min vs 2.8 min; contrast-enhanced MRI, 2.4 min vs 1.8 min; unenhanced MRI, 1.5 min vs 2.3 min). Substantial agreement between abdominal and pediatric radiologists was seen for all methods (κ = 0.72-0.83).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis was very similar to CT. No statistically significant difference in accuracy was observed between imaging modality or radiologist subspecialty.