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

Utilization of abdominal radiography in the emergency department: Appropriateness, interpretation, radiation protection and costs

INTRODUCTION

The use of abdominal radiography (AXR) apparently continues to be widespread despite its limited indications, the potential radiation and unnecessary costs associated. In addition, the interpretation and its report seem variable and not always performed by a radiologist. Our objective is to analyze the use, adequacy and usefulness of AXR in the emergency of a tertiary referral hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all the AXR performed in January 2020 in the emergency of our centre, as well as the patient's demographics and medical records, technical quality of the radiographs, indications according to the SERAM (Spanish Society of Radiology) Appropriateness Guidelines, presence of a formal radiology report, and impact on the clinical management of the patient. Of all non-appropriated AXR we calculated the radiation received by the patients and its extra costs.

RESULTS

In January 2020, 429 AXR (9.1% of all radiographies) were performed in the emergency of our centre. The most frequent indication was abdominal pain (40%, n = 176), followed by low back pain (21.4%, n = 92). 12.4% of AXR requested did not include any clinical information. Most of the AXR (79.6%) had sufficient technical quality. 61.3% (n = 263) of the AXR performed were not indicated, assuming an average unjustified radiation dose per patient of 0.50 ± 0.33 mSv, and a total additional cost of 6575;. Only 6% of the inadequate AXRs led to a change in the clinical management of the patient, compared to 29% of the adequate AXR (p < 0.001). Only 3% of the AXR had a formal radiology report.

CONCLUSIONS

AXR is still common in the emergency setting, although most of them might be inadequate according to the SERAM Appropriateness Guidelines. Its use should be optimized to avoid unnecessary radiation and costs. Radiologists must have a more active participation in the management of AXR.

Diagnostic performance and image quality of an image-based denoising algorithm applied to radiation dose-reduced CT in diagnosing acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

To evaluate diagnostic performance and image quality of ultralow-dose CT (ULDCT) in diagnosing acute appendicitis with an image-based deep-learning denoising algorithm (IDLDA).

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study included 180 patients (mean ± standard deviation, 29 ± 9 years; 91 female) who underwent contrast-enhanced 2-mSv CT for suspected appendicitis from February 2014 to August 2016. We simulated ULDCT from 2-mSv CT, reducing the dose by at least 50%. Then we applied an IDLDA on ULDCT to produce denoised ULDCT (D-ULDCT). Six radiologists with different experience levels (three board-certified radiologists and three residents) independently reviewed the ULDCT and D-ULDCT. They rated the likelihood of appendicitis and subjective image qualities (subjective image noise, diagnostic acceptability, and artificial sensation). One radiologist measured image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). We used the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses, Wilcoxon's signed-rank tests, and paired t-tests.

RESULTS

The area under the ROC curves (AUC) for diagnosing appendicitis ranged 0.90-0.97 for ULDCT and 0.94-0.97 for D-ULDCT. The AUCs of two residents were significantly higher on D-ULDCT (AUC difference = 0.06 [95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.11; p = .022] and 0.05 [0.00-0.10; p = .046], respectively). D-ULDCT provided better subjective image noise and diagnostic acceptability to all six readers. However, the response of board-certified radiologists and residents differed in artificial sensation (all p ≤ .003). D-ULDCT showed significantly lower image noise, higher SNR, and higher CNR (all p < .001).

CONCLUSION

An IDLDA can provide better ULDCT image quality and enhance diagnostic performance for less-experienced radiologists.

Recent technologies in cardiac imaging

Cardiac imaging allows physicians to view the structure and function of the heart to detect various heart abnormalities, ranging from inefficiencies in contraction, regulation of volumetric input and output of blood, deficits in valve function and structure, accumulation of plaque in arteries, and more. Commonly used cardiovascular imaging techniques include x-ray, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), echocardiogram, and positron emission tomography (PET)/single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). More recently, even more tools are at our disposal for investigating the heart's physiology, performance, structure, and function due to technological advancements. This review study summarizes cardiac imaging techniques with a particular interest in MRI and CT, noting each tool's origin, benefits, downfalls, clinical application, and advancement of cardiac imaging in the near future.

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.

Low-Dose Abdominal CT for Evaluating Suspected Appendicitis in Adolescents and Young Adults: Review of Evidence

Due to its excellent diagnostic performance, CT is the mainstay of diagnostic test in adults with suspected acute appendicitis in many countries. Although debatable, extensive epidemiological studies have suggested that CT radiation is carcinogenic, at least in children and adolescents. Setting aside the debate over the carcinogenic risk of CT radiation, the value of judicious use of CT radiation cannot be overstated for the diagnosis of appendicitis, considering that appendicitis is a very common disease, and that the vast majority of patients with suspected acute appendicitis are adolescents and young adults with average life expectancies. Given the accumulated evidence justifying the use of low-dose CT (LDCT) of only 2 mSv, there is no reasonable basis to insist on using radiation dose of multi-purpose abdominal CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis, particularly in adolescents and young adults. Published data strongly suggest that LDCT is comparable to conventional dose CT in terms of clinical outcomes and diagnostic performance. In this narrative review, we will discuss such evidence for reducing CT radiation in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis.

Classification of acute appendicitis (CAA): treatment directed new classification based on imaging (ultrasound, computed tomography) and pathology

PURPOSE

Acute appendicitis (AA) is amongst the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. In spite of progress based on risk stratifications, "negative" appendectomies are performed in up to 30% of patients whilst the appendix perforates in others. Preoperative classification of AA based on imaging is therefore recommended. The aim was to classify AA based on imaging (ultrasound/US, computed tomography/CT), surgical pathology, and/or histopathology in order to differentiate between complicated and uncomplicated AA. A new classification of acute appendicitis (CAA) shall be illustrated by typical US and CT images and be employed in a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Any study after 1970, which investigated clinical scores, pathology, US, CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and treatment of AA, was included. Typical images were taken from the author's image database.

RESULTS

Five main types of AA are defined, normal appendix (type 0), nonvisualised appendix (type X), uncomplicated AA (type 1), complicated AA without perforation (type 2), and complicated AA with perforation (type 3). The imaging modality is indicated by an additional letter, e.g., type p3b for free perforation on pathology. Standardised reporting of the appendix evaluation by US and CT is presented, as well as algorithms for AA management. Imaging features indicating imminent perforation, as well as likely recurrence, were both classified as complicated AA.

CONCLUSION

Imaging is mandatory in suspected AA. The CAA clearly separates uncomplicated from complicated forms of AA allowing nonoperative management in selected patients with uncomplicated forms of AA.

Can Patient Triaging with Clinical Scoring Systems Reduce CT Use in Adolescents and Young Adults Suspected of Having Appendicitis?

Background There are ongoing efforts to reduce CT radiation exposure for the diagnosis of appendicitis. Recent guidelines recommend using clinical scoring systems to triage patients who need imaging examinations. Purpose To determine whether patient triaging with scoring systems can reduce CT use without a loss of diagnostic accuracy in adolescents and young adults suspected of having appendicitis. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used data from a previous multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted between December 2013 and August 2016. Five scoring systems (adult appendicitis, appendicitis inflammatory response, modified Alvarado, Broek, and Christian scores) were used to categorize patients into low-, intermediate-, or high-probability groups. CT use was simulated for only the intermediate-probability group. The primary outcomes were CT reduction rate, sensitivity, and specificity. The CT reduction rate was defined as the proportion of patients in low- and high-probability groups who would not have to undergo CT among all patients. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated in the overall diagnostic pathway using each scoring system and subsequent CT. As a secondary analysis, to maintain the diagnostic accuracy to a level of when CT was used for all patients with suspected appendicitis, new cutoff values for probability group stratification targeting 97.6% sensitivity and 94.9% specificity were applied for each of the scoring systems. Results A total of 2888 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 28 years ± 9; 1580 women and 1308 men) with suspected appendicitis were evaluated, of whom 1088 had and 1800 did not have appendicitis. The CT reduction rates of the five scoring systems ranged from 55.6% (1606 of 2888 patients) to 71.1% (2053 of 2888), but at the cost of sensitivity (range, 48.7% [530 of 1088] to 81.2% [883 of 1088]) and specificity (range, 79.0% [1422 of 1800] to 97.8% [1761 of 1800]). Targeting 97.6% sensitivity and 94.9% specificity, the CT reduction rates of all five scoring systems were 0% (0 of 2888). Conclusion Using clinical scoring systems in triaging patients for selective CT use led to a considerable loss of diagnostic accuracy. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mellnick in this issue.

Diagnostic performance and radiation dose of reduced vs. standard scan range abdominopelvic CT for evaluation of appendicitis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance and radiation dose of reduced vs. standard scan range CT in diagnosing appendicitis.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 531 consecutive adults who underwent emergency contrast-enhanced CT for abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis between July 2018 and March 2019. One hundred eighty-one young adults (mean age, 26 ± 6 years) were imaged from L2 to the symphysis pubis (reduced protocol). A total of 350 older patients (mean age, 55 ± 17 years) and those with a wider differential diagnosis were imaged from the diaphragm to the ischium (standard protocol). The reference standard was histopathology (surgical cases) or 3 months of medical record follow-up (nonsurgical cases). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. Mean dose-length products (DLP) were compared (t-test). Using an anthropomorphic phantom, organ doses were measured on CT scanners with (scanner 1) and without (scanner 2) automatic voltage selection; effective radiation doses were calculated.

RESULTS

The frequency of appendicitis was 57/181 (31.5%) and 80/350 (22.9%) in the reduced and standard groups, respectively. Results of the reduced and standard protocols respectively were as follows (95% CI in parentheses): sensitivity, 98.2% (90.4-99.9%) and 100.0 (95.3-100.0%); specificity, 99.2% (95.6-100.0%) and 99.6% (97.9-100.0%); accuracy, 97.8% and 97.4%; mean DLPs, 363 ± 191mGy∙cm and 633 ± 591mGy∙cm (p < 0.0001). Phantom-based measurements of effective dose were 47% lower on scanner 1 (4.64 vs. 2.48 mSv) and 26% lower on scanner 2 (4.68 vs. 3.45 mSv) with the reduced protocol.

CONCLUSION

For young adults with clinically suspected appendicitis, a reduced scan range CT protocol is as sensitive, specific, and accurate as a standard scan range CT and imparts significantly less radiation dose.

KEY POINTS

• A reduced scan range CT protocol in young adults with high suspicion of appendicitis demonstrates similar diagnostic performance as a full-range abdominopelvic CT in undifferentiated adult patients. • The reduced scan range CT protocol imparts significantly less radiation dose: 57% based on dose-length product data and 26-47% based on anthropomorphic phantom data.

Reliability of standardized reporting system of acute appendicitis in adults at low-dose 320-rows CT

Aim

To assess the reliability of a standardized reporting system of acute appendicitis at low-dose 320-rows CT.

Subjects and Methods

Retrospective analysis CT of 78 patients with pathologically proven acute appendicitis. The study was performed at a low-dose 320-rows CT. The image analysis was performed by 2 radiologists according to a standardized reporting system of acute appendicitis.

Results

There was an excellent overall of the inter-observer agreement of both observers for the standardized reporting system of acute appendicitis (K = 0.89, 95 % CI = 0.87-0.92, P = 0.001). There was good inter-observer agreement for visualization of the appendix (K = 0.78, P = 0.001), the tip diameter (K = 0.75, P = 0.001), and a single wall thickness of appendix (K = 0.77, P = 0.001). There was excellent inter-observer agreement for outer to outer wall diameter (K = 0.82, P = 0.001), mucosal hyper-enhancement (K = 0.80, P = 0.001), appendicolith (K = 0.86, P = 0.001), gas in the appendix (K = 0.82, P = 0.001), surrounding fat stranding (K = 0.81, P = 0.001), focal cecal thickening (K = 0.85, P = 0.001), peri-appendiceal air (K = 0.87, P = 0.001), peri-appendicular fluid collection, phlegmon, or abscess (K = 0.82, P = 0.001), and right ovary cyst (K = 0.83, P = 0.001).

Conclusion

we concluded that excellent reliability of a standardized reporting system of acute appendicitis in the adults using low-dose 320-rows CT.

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.

CT in Differentiating Complicated From Uncomplicated Appendicitis: Presence of Any of 10 CT Features Versus Radiologists' Gestalt Assessment

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to propose a sensitive CT criterion (the presence of any of 10 CT features) for complicated appendicitis that could be used in the nonoperative management of appendicitis and to compare the diagnostic performance of this sensitive CT criterion with that of gestalt assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This retrospective study, which was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital, included 100 patients with suspected appendicitis on CT. Complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, was pathologically or surgically confirmed in 32 patients. Six radiologists independently determined the presence of 10 previously reported CT features of complicated appendicitis (contrast enhancement defect of the appendiceal wall, abscess, extraluminal air, intraluminal air, extraluminal appendicolith, intraluminal appendicolith, moderate-to-severe periappendiceal fat stranding, periappendiceal fluid, ileus, and ascites) and rated the likelihood score for complicated appendicitis using gestalt assessment. The sensitivity and specificity of CT for complicated appendicitis were measured by the presence of any of 10 CT features (the any-of-10-features criterion) and by the radiologists' gestalt assessment. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were compared using a generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS. The pooled sensitivity of the presence of any of 10 CT features was higher than that of gestalt assessment (92% vs 64%; difference, 28% [95% CI, 10-46%]; p < 0.001), although the pooled specificity was lower (43% vs 76%; difference, -33% [95% CI, -48% to -17%]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. The pooled sensitivity of the presence of any of 10 CT features was higher than that of gestalt assessment, at the cost of lower specificity. For prudent selection of patients who should receive nonoperative treatment of appendicitis, the any-of-10-features criterion may be used to decrease treatment failure associated with a false-negative diagnosis of complication.

Low-Dose Computed Tomography for the Optimization of Radiation Dose Exposure in Patients with Crohn's Disease

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the mainstay method for the radiological imaging of the small bowel in patients with inflammatory bowel disease without the use of ionizing radiation. There are circumstances where imaging using ionizing radiation is required, particularly in the acute setting. This usually takes the form of computed tomography (CT). There has been a significant increase in the utilization of computed tomography (CT) for patients with Crohn's disease as patients are frequently diagnosed at a relatively young age and require repeated imaging. Between seven and eleven percent of patients with IBD are exposed to high cumulative effective radiation doses (CEDs) (>35–75 mSv), mostly patients with Crohn's disease (Newnham E 2007, Levi Z 2009, Hou JK 2014, Estay C 2015). This is primarily due to the more widespread and repeated use of CT, which accounts for 77% of radiation dose exposure amongst patients with Crohn's disease (Desmond et al., 2008). Reports of the projected cancer risks from the increasing CT use (Berrington et al., 2007) have led to increased patient awareness regarding the potential health risks from ionizing radiation (Coakley et al., 2011). Our responsibilities as physicians caring for these patients include education regarding radiation risk and, when an investigation that utilizes ionizing radiation is required, to keep radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable: the “ALARA” principle. Recent advances in CT technology have facilitated substantial radiation dose reductions in many clinical settings, and several studies have demonstrated significantly decreased radiation doses in Crohn's disease patients while maintaining diagnostic image quality. However, there is a balance to be struck between reducing radiation exposure and maintaining satisfactory image quality; if radiation dose is reduced excessively, the resulting CT images can be of poor quality and may be nondiagnostic. In this paper, we summarize the available evidence related to imaging of Crohn's disease, radiation exposure, and risk, and we report recent advances in low-dose CT technology that have particular relevance.

The evolution of image reconstruction for CT-from filtered back projection to artificial intelligence

Abstract

The first CT scanners in the early 1970s already used iterative reconstruction algorithms; however, lack of computational power prevented their clinical use. In fact, it took until 2009 for the first iterative reconstruction algorithms to come commercially available and replace conventional filtered back projection. Since then, this technique has caused a true hype in the field of radiology. Within a few years, all major CT vendors introduced iterative reconstruction algorithms for clinical routine, which evolved rapidly into increasingly advanced reconstruction algorithms. The complexity of algorithms ranges from hybrid-, model-based to fully iterative algorithms. As a result, the number of scientific publications on this topic has skyrocketed over the last decade. But what exactly has this technology brought us so far? And what can we expect from future hardware as well as software developments, such as photon-counting CT and artificial intelligence? This paper will try answer those questions by taking a concise look at the overall evolution of CT image reconstruction and its clinical implementations. Subsequently, we will give a prospect towards future developments in this domain.

Key Points

• Advanced CT reconstruction methods are indispensable in the current clinical setting.

• IR is essential for photon-counting CT, phase-contrast CT, and dark-field CT.

• Artificial intelligence will potentially further increase the performance of reconstruction methods.

Prospective evaluation of ultra-low-dose contrast-enhanced 100-kV abdominal computed tomography with tin filter: effect on radiation dose reduction and image quality with a third-generation dual-source CT system

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the radiation dose exposure, image quality, and diagnostic performance of enhanced 100-kVp abdominopelvic single-energy CT protocol with tin filter (TF).

METHODS

Ninety-three consecutive patients referred for a single-phase enhanced abdominopelvic CT were prospectively included after informed consent. They underwent in addition to a standard protocol (SP) an acquisition with TF. Both examinations were performed on a third-generation dual-source CT system (DSCT), in single energy, using automatic tube current modulation, identical pitch, and identical level of iterative reconstruction. Radiation metrics were compared. Size-specific dose estimates (SSDE), contrast to noise ratio (CNR), and figure of merit (FOM) were calculated. Diagnostic confidence for the assessment of a predetermined list of abdominal lesions was rated by two independent readers.

RESULTS

The mean dose of the TF protocol was significantly lower (CDTI 1.56 ± 0.43 mGy vs. 8.13 ± 3.32, p < 0.001; SSDE 9.94 ± 3.08 vs. 1.93 ± 0.39, p < 0.001), with an effective dose close to 1 mSv (1.14 mSv ± 0.34; p < 0.001). TF group exhibited non-significant lower liver CNR (2.76 vs. 3.03, p = 0.56) and was more dose efficient (FOM 10.6 vs. 2.49/mSv, p < 0.001) in comparison to SP. The mean diagnostic confidence for visceral, bone, and peritoneal tumors was equivalent between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced 100-kVp abdominopelvic CT acquired after spectral shaping with tin filtration can achieve similar diagnostic performance and CNR compared to a standard CT protocol, while reducing the radiation dose by 81%.

KEY POINTS

• 100-kVp spectral filtration enables enhanced abdominal CT with high-dose efficiency. • The radiation dose reaches the 1-mSv range. • Predetermined abdominopelvic lesions can be assessed without impairing on diagnostic confidence.