A deep learning-based technique for the diagnosis of epidural spinal cord compression on thoracolumbar CT.

PURPOSE: To develop a deep learning (DL) model for epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) on CT, which will aid earlier ESCC diagnosis for less experienced clinicians. METHODS: We retrospectively collected CT and MRI data from adult patients with suspected ESCC at a tertiary referral institute from 2007 till 2020. A total of 183 patients were used for training/validation of the DL model. A separate test set of 40 patients was used for DL model evaluation and comprised 60 staging CT and matched MRI scans performed with an interval of up to 2 months. DL model performance was compared to eight readers: one musculoskeletal radiologist, two body radiologists, one spine surgeon, and four trainee spine surgeons. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using inter-rater agreement, sensitivity, specificity and AUC. RESULTS: Overall, 3115 axial CT slices were assessed. The DL model showed high kappa of 0.872 for normal, low and high-grade ESCC (trichotomous), which was superior compared to a body radiologist (R4, κ = 0.667) and all four trainee spine surgeons (κ range = 0.625-0.838)(all p < 0.001). In addition, for dichotomous normal versus any grade of ESCC detection, the DL model showed high kappa (κ = 0.879), sensitivity (91.82), specificity (92.01) and AUC (0.919), with the latter AUC superior to all readers (AUC range = 0.732-0.859, all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A deep learning model for the objective assessment of ESCC on CT had comparable or superior performance to radiologists and spine surgeons. Earlier diagnosis of ESCC on CT could reduce treatment delays, which are associated with poor outcomes, increased costs, and reduced survival.

Pedicle Screw Pseudofracture on Computed Tomography Secondary to Metal Artifact Reduction.

Metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms are commonly used in computed tomography (CT) scans where metal implants are involved. However, MAR algorithms also have the potential to create new artifacts in reconstructed images. We present a case of a screw pseudofracture due to MAR on CT.

Deep learning assessment compared to radiologist reporting for metastatic spinal cord compression on CT.

Introduction: Metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) is a disastrous complication of advanced malignancy. A deep learning (DL) algorithm for MSCC classification on CT could expedite timely diagnosis. In this study, we externally test a DL algorithm for MSCC classification on CT and compare with radiologist assessment. Methods: Retrospective collection of CT and corresponding MRI from patients with suspected MSCC was conducted from September 2007 to September 2020. Exclusion criteria were scans with instrumentation, no intravenous contrast, motion artefacts and non-thoracic coverage. Internal CT dataset split was 84% for training/validation and 16% for testing. An external test set was also utilised. Internal training/validation sets were labelled by radiologists with spine imaging specialization (6 and 11-years post-board certification) and were used to further develop a DL algorithm for MSCC classification. The spine imaging specialist (11-years expertise) labelled the test sets (reference standard). For evaluation of DL algorithm performance, internal and external test data were independently reviewed by four radiologists: two spine specialists (Rad1 and Rad2, 7 and 5-years post-board certification, respectively) and two oncological imaging specialists (Rad3 and Rad4, 3 and 5-years post-board certification, respectively). DL model performance was also compared against the CT report issued by the radiologist in a real clinical setting. Inter-rater agreement (Gwet's kappa) and sensitivity/specificity/AUCs were calculated. Results: Overall, 420 CT scans were evaluated (225 patients, mean age=60 ± 11.9[SD]); 354(84%) CTs for training/validation and 66(16%) CTs for internal testing. The DL algorithm showed high inter-rater agreement for three-class MSCC grading with kappas of 0.872 (p<0.001) and 0.844 (p<0.001) on internal and external testing, respectively. On internal testing DL algorithm inter-rater agreement (κ=0.872) was superior to Rad 2 (κ=0.795) and Rad 3 (κ=0.724) (both p<0.001). DL algorithm kappa of 0.844 on external testing was superior to Rad 3 (κ=0.721) (p<0.001). CT report classification of high-grade MSCC disease was poor with only slight inter-rater agreement (κ=0.027) and low sensitivity (44.0), relative to the DL algorithm with almost-perfect inter-rater agreement (κ=0.813) and high sensitivity (94.0) (p<0.001). Conclusion: Deep learning algorithm for metastatic spinal cord compression on CT showed superior performance to the CT report issued by experienced radiologists and could aid earlier diagnosis.

Diagnostic Accuracy of CT for Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) is vital to expedite therapy and prevent paralysis. Staging CT is performed routinely in cancer patients and presents an opportunity for earlier diagnosis. METHODS: This retrospective study included 123 CT scans from 101 patients who underwent spine MRI within 30 days, excluding 549 CT scans from 216 patients due to CT performed post-MRI, non-contrast CT, or a gap greater than 30 days between modalities. Reference standard MESCC gradings on CT were provided in consensus via two spine radiologists (11 and 7 years of experience) analyzing the MRI scans. CT scans were labeled using the original reports and by three radiologists (3, 13, and 14 years of experience) using dedicated CT windowing. RESULTS: For normal/none versus low/high-grade MESCC per CT scan, all radiologists demonstrated almost perfect agreement with kappa values ranging from 0.866 (95% CI 0.787-0.945) to 0.947 (95% CI 0.899-0.995), compared to slight agreement for the reports (kappa = 0.095, 95%CI -0.098-0.287). Radiologists also showed high sensitivities ranging from 91.51 (95% CI 84.49-96.04) to 98.11 (95% CI 93.35-99.77), compared to 44.34 (95% CI 34.69-54.31) for the reports. CONCLUSION: Dedicated radiologist review for MESCC on CT showed high interobserver agreement and sensitivity compared to the current standard of care.