Diagnostic Performance on Low Dose Computed Tomography For Acute Appendicitis Among Attending and Resident Radiologists

Radiology Residents' Independent Diagnosis of Appendicitis Using 2-mSv Computed Tomography: A Secondary Analysis of a Large Pragmatic Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance and clinical outcomes of 2-mSv computed tomography (CT) and conventional-dose CT (CDCT), following radiology residents' interpretation of CT examinations for suspected appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Altogether, 3074 patients with suspected appendicitis aged 15-44 years (28 ± 9 years, 1672 females) from 20 hospitals were randomly assigned to the 2-mSv CT (n = 1535) or CDCT (n = 1539) groups in a pragmatic trial from December 2013 and August 2016. Overall, 107 radiology residents participated in the trial as readers in the form of daily practice after online training for 2-mSv CT. They made preliminary CT reports, which were later finalized by attending radiologists via addendum reports, for 640 and 657 patients in the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups, respectively. We compared the diagnostic performance of the residents, discrepancies between preliminary and addendum reports, and clinical outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between the 640 and 657 patients. Residents' diagnostic performance was not significantly different between the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups, with a sensitivity of 96.0% and 97.1%, respectively (difference [95% confidence interval {CI}], -1.1% [-4.9%, 2.6%]; P = 0.69) and specificity of 93.2% and 93.1%, respectively (0.1% [-3.6%, 3.7%]; P > 0.99). The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups did not significantly differ in discrepancies between the preliminary and addendum reports regarding the presence of appendicitis (3.3% vs. 5.2%; -1.9% [-4.2%, 0.4%]; P = 0.12) and alternative diagnosis (5.5% vs. 6.4%; -0.9% [-3.6%, 1.8%]; P = 0.56). The rates of perforated appendicitis (12.0% vs. 12.6%; -0.6% [-4.3%, 3.1%]; P = 0.81) and negative appendectomies (1.9% vs. 1.1%; 0.8% [-0.7%, 2.3%]; P = 0.33) were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic performance and clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups following radiology residents' CT readings for suspected appendicitis.

Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing acute appendicitis (appendicitis) based on clinical evaluation, blood testing, and urinalysis can be difficult. Therefore, in persons with suspected appendicitis, abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) is often used as an add-on test following the initial evaluation to reduce remaining diagnostic uncertainty. The aim of using CT is to assist the clinician in discriminating between persons who need surgery with appendicectomy and persons who do not.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective Our primary objective was to evaluate the accuracy of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults with suspected appendicitis. Secondary objectives Our secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced versus non-contrast-enhanced CT, to compare the accuracy of low-dose versus standard-dose CT, and to explore the influence of CT-scanner generation, radiologist experience, degree of clinical suspicion of appendicitis, and aspects of methodological quality on diagnostic accuracy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 16 June 2017. We also searched references lists. We did not exclude studies on the basis of language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective studies that compared results of CT versus outcomes of a reference standard in adults (> 14 years of age) with suspected appendicitis. We excluded studies recruiting only pregnant women; studies in persons with abdominal pain at any location and with no particular suspicion of appendicitis; studies in which all participants had undergone ultrasonography (US) before CT and the decision to perform CT depended on the US outcome; studies using a case-control design; studies with fewer than 10 participants; and studies that did not report the numbers of true-positives, false-positives, false-negatives, and true-negatives. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected the data from each study and evaluated methodological quality according to the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 64 studies including 71 separate study populations with a total of 10,280 participants (4583 with and 5697 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.72 to 1.0 and estimates of specificity ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 across the 71 study populations. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 0.96), and summary specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.95). At the median prevalence of appendicitis (0.43), the probability of having appendicitis following a positive CT result was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94), and the probability of having appendicitis following a negative CT result was 0.04 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05). In subgroup analyses according to contrast enhancement, summary sensitivity was higher for CT with intravenous contrast (0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), CT with rectal contrast (0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99), and CT with intravenous and oral contrast enhancement (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98) than for unenhanced CT (0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.93). Summary sensitivity of CT with oral contrast enhancement (0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94) and unenhanced CT was similar. Results show practically no differences in summary specificity, which varied from 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.95) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) between subgroups. Summary sensitivity for low-dose CT (0.94, 95% 0.90 to 0.97) was similar to summary sensitivity for standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT (0.95, 95% 0.93 to 0.96); summary specificity did not differ between low-dose and standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT. No studies had high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool. Major methodological problems were poor reference standards and partial verification primarily due to inadequate and incomplete follow-up in persons who did not have surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults are high. Unenhanced standard-dose CT appears to have lower sensitivity than standard-dose CT with intravenous, rectal, or oral and intravenous contrast enhancement. Use of different types of contrast enhancement or no enhancement does not appear to affect specificity. Differences in sensitivity and specificity between low-dose and standard-dose CT appear to be negligible. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution for two reasons. First, these results are based on studies of low methodological quality. Second, the comparisons between types of contrast enhancement and radiation dose may be unreliable because they are based on indirect comparisons that may be confounded by other factors.

The diagnostic performance of reduced-dose CT for suspected appendicitis in paediatric and adult patients: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of reduced-dose CT for suspected appendicitis.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was carried out through to 10 January 2017. Studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of reduced-dose CT for suspected appendicitis in paediatric and adult patients were selected. Pooled summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using hierarchical logistic regression modelling. Meta-regression was performed.

RESULTS

Fourteen original articles with a total of 3,262 patients were included. For all studies using reduced-dose CT, the summary sensitivity was 96 % (95 % CI 93-98) with a summary specificity of 94 % (95 % CI 92-95). For the 11 studies providing a head-to-head comparison between reduced-dose CT and standard-dose CT, reduced-dose CT demonstrated a comparable summary sensitivity of 96 % (95 % CI 91-98) and specificity of 94 % (95 % CI 93-96) without any significant differences (p=.41). In meta-regression, there were no significant factors affecting the heterogeneity. The median effective radiation dose of the reduced-dose CT was 1.8 mSv (1.46-4.16 mSv), which was a 78 % reduction in effective radiation dose compared to the standard-dose CT.

CONCLUSION

Reduced-dose CT shows excellent diagnostic performance for suspected appendicitis.

KEY POINTS

• Reduced-dose CT shows excellent diagnostic performance for evaluating suspected appendicitis. • Reduced-dose CT has a comparable diagnostic performance to standard-dose CT. • Median effective radiation dose of reduced-dose CT was 1.8 mSv (1.46-4.16). • Reduced-dose CT achieved a 78 % dose reduction compared to standard-dose CT.

Comparison of Low- and Standard-Dose CT for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to compare low-dose CT and standard-dose CT in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis with an emphasis on diagnostic value.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search for articles published through June 2016 was performed to identify studies that compared low-dose CT with standard-dose CT for the evaluation of patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% CIs were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Meta-regression was used to perform statistical comparisons of low-dose CT and standard-dose CT.

RESULTS

Of 154 studies, nine studies investigating a total of 2957 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of low-dose CT were 96.25% (95% CI, 91.88-98.31%) and 93.22% (95% CI, 88.75-96.00%), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of standard-dose CT were 96.40% (95% CI, 93.55-98.02%) and 92.17% (95% CI, 88.24-94.86%), respectively. In a joint model estimation of meta-regression, lowand standard-dose CT did not show a statistically significant difference (p = 0.71). Both lowand standard-dose CT seem to be characterized by high positive and negative predictive values across a broad spectrum of pretest probabilities for acute appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose CT is highly effective for the diagnosis of suspected appendicitis and can be considered a valid alternative first-line imaging test that reduces the potential risk of exposure to ionizing radiation.