Role of computed tomography at a cancer center emergency department

Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department: How to Select the Correct Imaging for Diagnosis

Abdominal pain is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department, and utilization of diagnostic imaging is often a key tool in determining its etiology. Plain radiography has limited utility in this population. Computed tomography (CT) is the imaging modality of choice for undifferentiated abdominal pain. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging may be helpful in specific scenarios, primarily in pediatrics and pregnancy, and offer the benefit of eliminating ionizing radiation risk of CT. Guidance for imaging selection is determined by location of pain, special patient considerations, and specific suspected etiologies. Expert guidance is offered by the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria^® which outlines imaging options based on location of pain.

Imaging of acute pelvic pain

Acute pelvic pain (APP) requires urgent medical evaluation and treatment. Differential diagnosis of APP is broad, including a variety of gynecologic and non-gynecologic/ urinary, gastrointestinal, vascular and other entities. Close anatomical and physiological relations of pelvic structures, together with similar clinical presentation of different disorders and overlapping of symptoms, especially in the emergency background, make the proper diagnosis of APP challenging. Imaging plays a crucial role in the fast and precise diagnosis of APP. Ultrasonography is the first-line imaging modality, often accompanied by CT, while MRI is utilized in specific cases, using short, tailored protocols. Recognizing the cause of APP in females is a challenging task, due to the wide spectrum of possible origin and overlap of their imaging features. Therefore, the radiologist has to be familiar with the possible causes of APP, and, relying on clinical presentation, together with laboratory findings, choose the best imaging strategy in order to establish a fast and accurate diagnosis.

Assessing and coping with the financial burden of computed tomography utilization in Limbe, Cameroon: a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

There has been a significant increase in computed tomography (CT) utilization over the past two decades with the major challenges being a high exposure to ionizing radiation and rising cost. In this study we assess the risk of financial hardship after CT utilization and elaborate on how users adapt and cope in a sub-Saharan context with user fee for services and no national health insurance policy.

METHODS

We carried out a sequential explanatory mixed methods study with a quantitative hospital-based survey of CT users followed by in-depth interviews of some purposively selected participants who reported risk of financial hardship after CT utilization. Data was summarized using frequencies, percentages and 95% confidence intervals. Logistic regression was used in multivariable analysis to determine predictors of risk of financial hardship. Identified themes from in-depth interviews were categorized. Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated.

RESULTS

A total of 372 participants were surveyed with a male to female sex ratio of 1:1.2. The mean age (standard deviation) was 52(17) years. CT scans of the head and facial bones accounted for 63% (95%CI: 59-68%) and the top three indications were suspected stroke (27% [95%CI: 22-32%]), trauma (14% [95%CI: 10-18%]) and persistent headaches (14% [95%CI: 10-18%]). Seventy-two percent (95%CI: 67-76%) of the respondents reported being at risk of financial hardship after CT utilization and predictors in the multivariable analysis were a low socioeconomic status (aOR: 0.19 [95%CI: 0.10-0.38]; p < 0.001), being unemployed or retired (aOR: 11.75 [95%CI: 2.59-53.18]; p = 0.001) and not having any form of health insurance (aOR: 3.59 [95%CI: 1.31-9.85]; p = 0.013). Coping strategies included getting financial support from family and friends, borrowing money and obtaining discounts from the hospital administration and staff.

CONCLUSION

No health insurance ownership, being unemployed or retired and a low socioeconomic status are associated with financial hardship after CT utilization. Diverse coping strategies are utilized to lessen the financial burden, some with negative consequences. Minimizing out-of-pocket payments and/or the direct cost of CT can reduce this financial burden and improve CT access.

Utility of Emergency Department Chest Imaging in Patients with Cancer: A Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

The use of computed tomography (CT) has been scrutinized in emergency medicine, particularly in patients with cancer. Previous studies have characterized the rate of CT use in this population; however, limited data are available about the yield of this modality compared with radiography and its clinical decision-making effect.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether CT imaging of the chest increases identification of clinically significant results compared with chest radiography (CXR) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review of patients with a history of solid tumors presenting to an emergency department in 2017. Patients who received both CXR and CT (or CT angiography) of the chest during their assessment were identified and the rate of clinically significant findings on imaging was compared. Clinical findings were further categorized as requiring nonurgent, urgent, or emergent attention. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared testing were performed between the 2 imaging modalities.

RESULTS

From 839 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 287 were randomly sampled. The predominant malignancies were lung (32.4%), breast (13.9%), and head and neck cancer (13.6%). A greater number of patients had clinically significant findings identified on CT imaging (n = 222) compared with CXR (n = 108). Stratification upon urgency of these findings (nonurgent, urgent, or emergent) reveals a significant difference in all strata (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CXR, CT imaging of the chest identified significantly more clinically relevant findings requiring attention and consequently affecting clinical decision making.

Reducing emergency department (ED) computed tomography (CT) utilization in women treated for gynecologic cancers

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this quality improvement (QI) project was to decrease the rate of low-value computed tomography (CT) imaging in established gynecologic oncology patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This was a cohort study with a before and after design that evaluated implementation of a QI project designed to decrease CT utilization in established gynecologic oncology patients in the ED. The pre-intervention cohort included patients admitted through the ED from 4/1/17 to 5/31/18, while the post-intervention cohort was from 6/1/18 to 5/31/19. The intervention included gynecologic oncology consultation before CT on patients who had imaging within the prior 3 weeks. Details regarding CT, ED length of stay (LOS), and oncologic history were abstracted. The value of CT was determined by consensus from 2 reviewers. Prospective data monitoring evaluated for patient safety.

RESULTS

Prior to intervention, there were 129 unique ED encounters in gynecologic oncology patients leading to admission. CT scans were performed in 101 (78.3%) encounters, 57.7% of which were deemed to be of low-value. Following implementation, the CT utilization rate decreased significantly from median monthly rate of 75.2% to 49.1% (p < 0.00001), and the ED LOS decreased from 8.1 to 6.9 h (p = 0.0102). The number of CT scans deemed to be low-value in the post-intervention group decreased to 2 (3.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an early consultation policy and imaging guidelines led to a significant decrease in unnecessary CT utilization and shorter ED LOS in gynecologic oncology patients presenting to the ED.

New CT-based diagnoses of torso cancer is low in the emergency department setting

PURPOSE

The incidence of new CT-based torso cancer diagnoses and the most commonly diagnosed cancer types in the emergency department (ED) setting are unknown. The purpose of our study was to determine the incidence and types of new CT-based torso cancer diagnoses in the ED.

METHODS

A total of 19,496 CT reports including all or parts of the torso from 2017 were searched for the keywords: "mass", "tumor", "neoplasm", "malignancy", or "cancer". Each report and corresponding medical record was evaluated for presence of a new cancer. Cases were scored as no cancer, subcentimeter lung nodule, known cancer, new cancer, or suspicious, but unconfirmed for new cancer. Each mass was characterized as symptom-related or incidental.

RESULTS

At least one keyword was found in 2086 reports. Of these 706, 126 and 905 were known cancer cases, subcentimeter lung nodules, and non-cancerous cases, respectively. There were 251 confirmed new cancers and 98 suspicious cases which lacked adequate diagnostic workup. Depending on whether only definite or definite and suspicious cases were included together, the number of new cancer cases per 100 torso CT exams was 1.3 or 1.8, respectively. Gastrointestinal, lung, pancreaticobiliary, urinary, and gynecologic cancers were most common. Only 58 of the confirmed cases (23%) were deemed as incidental findings.

CONCLUSION

CT-diagnosis of new torso cancers was uncommon in our setting. Still, while extensive knowledge of cancer staging may not be necessary for ED radiologists, knowledge of the most common types of cancer including gastrointestinal, lung, pancreaticobiliary, urinary, and gynecologic cancers may improve sensitivity for these diagnoses and may expedite appropriate referrals for the newly diagnosed patients.

Utility of MR Imaging in Abdominopelvic Emergencies

Acute abdominopelvic pain, a common symptom in emergency department patients, is challenging given the spectrum of differential diagnoses encompassing multiple organ systems, ranging from benign self-limiting to life-threatening and emergent. Diagnostic imaging is critical given its high accuracy and management guidance. A contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan is preferred given its widespread availability and speed of acquisition. MR imaging may be appropriate, usually performed for specific indications with tailored protocols. It is accurate for diagnosis and may be an alternative to CT. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages, protocols, and appearances of MR imaging of common diagnoses.