Appendiceal Visualization on 2-mSv CT vs. Conventional-Dose CT in Adolescents and Young Adults with Suspected Appendicitis: An Analysis of Large Pragmatic Randomized Trial Data

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.

Radiology Residents' Independent Diagnosis of Appendicitis Using 2-mSv Computed Tomography: A Secondary Analysis of a Large Pragmatic Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance and clinical outcomes of 2-mSv computed tomography (CT) and conventional-dose CT (CDCT), following radiology residents' interpretation of CT examinations for suspected appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Altogether, 3074 patients with suspected appendicitis aged 15-44 years (28 ± 9 years, 1672 females) from 20 hospitals were randomly assigned to the 2-mSv CT (n = 1535) or CDCT (n = 1539) groups in a pragmatic trial from December 2013 and August 2016. Overall, 107 radiology residents participated in the trial as readers in the form of daily practice after online training for 2-mSv CT. They made preliminary CT reports, which were later finalized by attending radiologists via addendum reports, for 640 and 657 patients in the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups, respectively. We compared the diagnostic performance of the residents, discrepancies between preliminary and addendum reports, and clinical outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between the 640 and 657 patients. Residents' diagnostic performance was not significantly different between the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups, with a sensitivity of 96.0% and 97.1%, respectively (difference [95% confidence interval {CI}], -1.1% [-4.9%, 2.6%]; P = 0.69) and specificity of 93.2% and 93.1%, respectively (0.1% [-3.6%, 3.7%]; P > 0.99). The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups did not significantly differ in discrepancies between the preliminary and addendum reports regarding the presence of appendicitis (3.3% vs. 5.2%; -1.9% [-4.2%, 0.4%]; P = 0.12) and alternative diagnosis (5.5% vs. 6.4%; -0.9% [-3.6%, 1.8%]; P = 0.56). The rates of perforated appendicitis (12.0% vs. 12.6%; -0.6% [-4.3%, 3.1%]; P = 0.81) and negative appendectomies (1.9% vs. 1.1%; 0.8% [-0.7%, 2.3%]; P = 0.33) were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic performance and clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups following radiology residents' CT readings for suspected appendicitis.