Radiologic head CT interpretation errors in pediatric abusive and non-abusive head trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric head trauma, including abusive head trauma, is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to identify and evaluate radiologic interpretation errors of head CTs performed on abusive and non-abusive pediatric head trauma patients from a community setting referred for a secondary interpretation at a tertiary pediatric hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective search identified 184 patients <5 years of age with head CT for known or potential head trauma who had a primary interpretation performed at a referring community hospital by a board-certified radiologist. Two board-certified fellowship-trained neuroradiologists at an academic pediatric hospital independently interpreted the head CTs, compared their interpretations to determine inter-reader discrepancy rates, and resolved discrepancies to establish a consensus second interpretation. The primary interpretation was compared to the consensus second interpretation using the RADPEER™ scoring system to determine the primary interpretation-second interpretation overall and major discrepancy rates. MRI and/or surgical findings were used to validate the primary interpretation or second interpretation when possible. The diagnosis of abusive head trauma was made using clinical and imaging data by a child abuse specialist to separate patients into abusive head trauma and non-abusive head trauma groups. Discrepancy rates were compared for both groups. Lastly, primary interpretations and second interpretations were evaluated for discussion of imaging findings concerning for abusive head trauma. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between primary interpretation-second interpretation versus inter-reader overall and major discrepancy rates (28% vs. 6%, P=0.0001; 16% vs. 1%, P=0.0001). There were significant differences in the primary interpretation-second interpretation overall and major discrepancy rates for abusive head trauma patients compared to non-abusive head trauma patients (41% vs 23%, P=0.02; 26% vs. 12%, P=0.03). The most common findings resulting in major radiologic interpretation errors were fractures and subdural hemorrhage. Differences in the age of the patient and the percentage of patients with hemorrhage were statistically significant between the abusive head trauma versus non-abusive head trauma groups, while no statistical difference was identified for skull fractures, ischemia, head CT radiation dose, or presence of multiplanar or 3-D reformatted images. The second interpretation more frequently indicated potential for abusive head trauma compared to the primary interpretation (P=0.0001). MRI and/or surgical findings were in agreement with the second interpretation in 29/29 (100%) of patients with discrepancies. CONCLUSION: A high incidence of radiologic interpretation errors may occur in pediatric trauma patients at risk for abusive head trauma who are referred from a community hospital. This suggests value for second interpretations of head CTs at a tertiary pediatric hospital for this patient population.

Radiation-Induced Cerebral Microbleeds in Pediatric Patients With Brain Tumors Treated With Proton Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Proton beam radiation therapy (PBT) has been increasingly used to treat pediatric brain tumors; however, limited information exists regarding radiation-induced cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) among these patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and imaging appearance of CMBs in pediatric patients with brain tumors treated with PBT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of 100 pediatric patients with primary brain tumors treated with PBT. CMBs were diagnosed by examination of serial magnetic resonance imaging scans, including susceptibility-weighted imaging. Radiation therapy plans were analyzed to determine doses to individual CMBs. Clinical records were used to determine risk factors associated with the development of CMBs in these patients. RESULTS: The mean age at time of PBT was 8.1 years. The median follow-up duration was 57 months. The median time to development of CMBs was 8 months (mean, 11 months; range, 3-28 months). The percentage of patients with CMBs was 43%, 66%, 80%, 81%, 83%, and 81% at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, and >5 years from completion of proton radiation therapy. Most of the CMBs (87%) were found in areas of brain exposed to ≥30 Gy. Risk factors included maximum radiation therapy dose (P = .001), percentage and volume of brain exposed to ≥30 Gy (P = .0004, P = .0005), and patient age at time of PBT (P = .0004). Chemotherapy was not a significant risk factor (P = .35). No CMBs required surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: CMBs develop in a high percentage of pediatric patients with brain tumors treated with proton radiation therapy within the first few years after treatment. Significant risk factors for development of CMBs include younger age at time of PBT, higher maximum radiation therapy dose, and higher percentage and volume of brain exposed to ≥30 Gy. These findings demonstrate similarities with CMBs that develop in pediatric patients with brain tumor treated with photon radiation therapy.

Radiation-Induced Large Vessel Cerebral Vasculopathy in Pediatric Patients With Brain Tumors Treated With Proton Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to evaluate the incidence, time to development, imaging patterns, risk factors, and clinical significance of large vessel cerebral vasculopathy in pediatric patients with brain tumors treated with proton radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective study was performed on 75 consecutive pediatric patients with primary brain tumors treated with proton radiation therapy. Radiation-induced large vessel cerebral vasculopathy (RLVCV) was defined as intracranial large vessel arterial stenosis or occlusion confirmed on magnetic resonance angiography, computed tomographic angiography, catheter angiography, or a combination of these within an anatomic region with previous exposure to proton beam therapy and not present before radiation therapy. Clinical records were used to determine the incidence, timing, radiation dose to the large vessels, and clinical significance associated with the development of large vessel vasculopathy in these patients. RESULTS: RLVCV was present in 5 of 75 (6.7%) patients and included tumor pathologic features of craniopharyngioma (n=2), ATRT (n=1), medulloblastoma (n=1), and anaplastic astrocytoma (n=1). The median time from completion of radiation therapy to development was 1.5 years (mean, 3.0 years; range, 1.0-7.5 years). Neither mean age at the time of radiation therapy (5.1 years) nor mean radiation therapy dose to the large vessels (54.5 Gy) was a statistically significant risk factor. Four of the 5 patients with RLVCV presented with acute stroke and demonstrated magnetic resonance imaging evidence of acute infarcts in the expected vascular distributions. Angiography studies demonstrated collateral vessel formation in only 2 of the patients with RLVCV. No patients demonstrated acute hemorrhage or aneurysm. Two patients were treated with pial synangiomatosis surgery. CONCLUSIONS: RLVCV can occur in pediatric patients with brain tumors treated with proton radiation therapy. Further studies are necessary to determine potential risk factors for large vessel vasculopathy with proton radiation therapy in comparison with conventional photon radiation therapy.