Low-Dose Abdominal CT for Evaluating Suspected Appendicitis: Recommendations for CT Imaging Techniques and Practical Issues.

A vast disparity exists between science and practice for CT radiation dose. Despite high-level evidence supporting the use of low-dose CT (LDCT) in diagnosing appendicitis, a recent survey showed that many care providers were still concerned that the low image quality of LDCT may lead to incorrect diagnoses. For successful implementation of LDCT practice, it is important to inform and educate the care providers not only of the scientific discoveries but also of concrete guidelines on how to overcome more practical matters. Here, we discuss CT imaging techniques and other practical issues for implementing LDCT practice.

Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of 2-mSv CT vs. conventional-dose CT in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis: post hoc subgroup analysis of the LOCAT data.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether the difference in sensitivity or specificity between 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT (CDCT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis differs across subgroups of adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the per-protocol analysis data of a trial conducted between Dec 2013 and Aug 2016, including 2773 patients (median age [interquartile range], 28 [21-35] years) and 160 radiologists from 20 hospitals. We defined subgroups by sex, body size, clinical risk scores for appendicitis, time of CT examination (i.e., working vs. after hours), CT machines, radiologists' experience, previous site experience in 2-mSv CT, and site practice volume. We drew forest plots and tested for additive or multiplicative interaction between radiation dose and subgroup attributes. If any subgroup had fewer than 200 patients, we considered the results from that subgroup not meaningful. RESULTS: For most subgroups, the 95% CIs for the differences in sensitivity and specificity were 4.0 percentage points or narrower and contained the minute overall between-group differences. There was no significant interaction on sensitivity or specificity. A few subgroups, including those of extreme body sizes, high appendicitis inflammatory response scores, and hospitals with small appendectomy volume, were regarded to have insufficient numbers of patients. CONCLUSIONS: There was no notable subgroup heterogeneity, which implies that 2-mSv CT can replace CDCT in diverse populations. Further studies are needed for the subgroups for which we had only small data. KEY POINTS: • The minute difference in sensitivity or specificity between the 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT (typically 7 mSv) groups were consistent across various patient or hospital characteristics. • These results indicate that 2-mSv CT can replace conventional-dose CT in diverse populations. • Further studies are needed to confirm whether 2-mSv CT can replace conventional-dose CT in patients of extreme body sizes, high appendicitis inflammatory response scores, or hospitals with small appendectomy volume, as those subgroups in our data included limited numbers of patients.

Value of Additional Ultrasound Examination in Patients with Equivocal Computed Tomography Findings of Acute Appendicitis: Comparison with Computed Tomography Reassessment.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to find the diagnostic values of additional ultrasound (US) in patients with equivocal computed tomography (CT) findings of acute appendicitis, compared to CT reassessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with equivocal CT findings of acute appendicitis (n = 115), who underwent the US, were included in the study. Two abdominal radiologists reviewed CT scans independently. They analyzed CT findings and made a diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The patients were categorized into positive and negative appendicitis based on the previous US reports. The diagnostic performance, interobserver agreement of CT findings, and appendicitis likelihood were calculated. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of US (100%, 92.1%, 79.5%, and 100%, respectively) were higher than those of CT reassessment (reviewer 1: 51.9%, 87.5%, 56.1%, and 85.6%; reviewer 2: 66.7%, 85.2%, 58.1%, and 89.3%, respectively). In the coexistent inflammation group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of US (reviewer 1: 100%, 98%, 91.5%, and 100%; reviewer 2: 100%, 98%, 87.7%, and 100%, respectively) were higher than those of CT reassessment (reviewer 1: 27.3%, 94.1%, 49.9%, and 85.8%; reviewer 2: 14.3%, 98.0%, 50.5%, and 88.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with equivocal CT findings of acute appendicitis, US shows better diagnostic performance than CT reassessment, and helps differentiate with periappendicitis.

Structured Reporting versus Free-Text Reporting for Appendiceal Computed Tomography in Adolescents and Young Adults: Preference Survey of 594 Referring Physicians, Surgeons, and Radiologists from 20 Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To survey care providers' preference between structured reporting (SR) and free-text reporting (FTR) for appendiceal computed tomography (CT) in adolescents and young adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An ethical committee approved this prospective study. The requirement for participant consent was waived. We distributed the Likert scale-based SR form delivering the likelihood of appendicitis across 20 hospitals through a large clinical trial. In the final phase of the trial, we invited 706 potential care providers to participate in an online survey. The survey questions included usefulness in patient management, communicating the likelihood of appendicitis, convenience, style and format, and overall preference. Logistic regression analysis was performed for the overall preference. Three months after the completion of the trial, we checked if the use of the SR was sustained. RESULTS: Responses were analyzed from 594 participants (175 attendings and 419 trainees; 225 radiologists, 207 emergency physicians, and 162 surgeons). For each question, 47.3-64.8% of the participants preferred SR, 13.1-32.7% preferred FTR, and the remaining had no preference. The overall preference varied considerably across the hospitals, but slightly across the departments or job positions. The overall preference for SR over FTR was significantly associated with attendings, SR experience for appendiceal CT, hospitals with small appendectomy volume, and hospitals enrolling more patients in the trial. Five hospitals continued using the SR in usual care after the trial. CONCLUSION: Overall, the care providers preferred SR to FTR. Further investigation into the sustained use of the SR is needed.

Can We Perform CT of the Appendix with Less Than 1 mSv? A De-escalating Dose-simulation Study.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically explore the lowest reasonably achievable radiation dose for appendiceal CT using an iterative reconstruction (IR) in young adults. METHODS: We prospectively included 30 patients who underwent 2.0-mSv CT for suspected appendicitis. From the helical projection data, 1.5-, 1.0- and 0.5-mSv CTs were generated using a low-dose simulation tool and the knowledge-based IR. We performed step-wise non-inferiority tests sequentially comparing 2.0-mSv CT with each of 1.5-, 1.0- and 0.5-mSv CT, with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.06. The primary end point was the pooled area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC) for three abdominal and three non-abdominal radiologists. RESULTS: For the abdominal radiologists, the non-inferiorities of 1.5-, 1.0- and 0.5-mSv CT to 2.0-mSv CT were sequentially accepted [pooled AUC difference: 2.0 vs. 0.5 mSv, 0.017 (95% CI: -0.016, 0.050)]. For the non-abdominal radiologists, the non-inferiorities of 1.5- and 1.0-mSv CT were accepted; however, the non-inferiority of 0.5-mSv CT could not be proved [pooled AUC difference: 2.0 vs. 1.0 mSv, -0.017 (-0.070, 0.035) and 2.0 vs. 0.5 mSv, 0.045 (-0.071, 0.161)]. CONCLUSION: The 1.0-mSv appendiceal CT was non-inferior to 2.0-mSv CT in terms of diagnostic performance for both abdominal and non-abdominal radiologists; 0.5-mSv appendiceal CT was non-inferior only for abdominal radiologists. KEY POINTS: • For both abdominal and non-abdominal radiologists, 1.0-mSv appendiceal CT could be feasible. • The 0.5-mSv CT was non-inferior to 2.0-mSv CT only for expert abdominal radiologists. • Reader experience is an important factor affecting diagnostic impairment by low-dose CT.

Added value of ultrasound re-evaluation for patients with equivocal CT findings of acute appendicitis: a preliminary study.

PURPOSE: To prospectively estimate the additional diagnostic value of ultrasound (US) re-evaluation for patients with equivocal computed tomography (CT) findings of acute appendicitis. METHODS: Between April 2011 and October 2011, 869 consecutive patients with suspected appendicitis who were referred for CT were included. The likelihood of appendicitis was prospectively categorized into five categories. US re-evaluation was recommended for patients in the 'equivocal appendix' and 'probably not appendicitis' groups. The overall negative appendectomy rate during the study period was compared with the rate of the previous year, and negative appendectomy rates of the US and non-US evaluation groups were also compared. RESULTS: Among 869 patients, 71 (8.2 %) had equivocal appendicitis findings and 63 (7.2 %) were diagnosed as probably not appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity of CT combined with US re-evaluation group (100 % and 98.1 %, respectively) exceeded those of the CT alone group (93 % and 99 %; equivocal group considered as negative appendicitis, 100 % and 89.9 %; as positive, respectively, P < 0.0001). After adding US re-evaluation, the overall negative appendectomy rate in our institution decreased from 3.4 to 2.3 %. CONCLUSION: For patients with equivocal CT findings of acute appendicitis, US re-evaluation can improve diagnostic accuracy and decrease the rate of negative appendectomies. KEY POINTS: • Misdiagnosis of appendicitis still occurs, especially in patients with equivocal radiological findings. • The sensitivity and specificity of CT followed by US exceeded those of CT alone. • After US re-evaluation, the negative appendectomy rate decreased from 3.4 to 2.3 %. • US re-evaluation in equivocal cases helps diagnostic confidence and further management.