An evaluation of a superfast MRI sequence in the diagnosis of suspected acute appendicitis

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children.

METHODS

Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

Rapid MRI Abdomen for Assessment of Clinically Suspected Acute Appendicitis in the General Adult Population: a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review on the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen to evaluate clinically suspected appendicitis in the general adult population. We examined the diagnostic accuracy, the reported trends of MRI use, and the factors that affect the utility of MRI abdomen, including study duration and cost-benefits.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. We enrolled primary studies investigating the use of MRI in diagnosing appendicitis in the general adult population, excluding studies that predominantly reported on populations not representative of typical adult appendicitis presentations, such as those focusing on paediatric or pregnant populations.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven eligible primary studies and 6 secondary studies were included, totaling 2,044 patients from eight countries. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for diagnosing appendicitis were 96% (95% CI: 93-97%) and 93% (95% CI: 80-98%), respectively. MRI can identify complicated appendicitis and accurately propose alternative diagnoses. The duration of MRI protocols in each primary study ranged between 2.26 and 30 minutes, and only one study used intravenous contrast agents in addition to the non-contrast sequences. Decision analysis suggests significant benefits for replacing computed tomography (CT) with MRI and a potential for cost reduction. Reported trends in MRI usage showed minimal utilisation in diagnostic settings even when MRI was available.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI accurately diagnoses appendicitis in the general adult population and improves the identification of complicated appendicitis or alternative diagnoses compared to other modalities using a single, rapid investigation.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis remains a difficult disease to diagnose, and imaging adjuncts are commonly employed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an imaging test that can be used to diagnose appendicitis. It is not commonly regarded as a first-line imaging test for appendicitis, but the reported diagnostic accuracy in some studies is equivalent to computed tomography (CT) scans. As it does not expose patients to radiation, it is an attractive imaging modality, particularly in women and children.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting appendicitis in all patients. Secondary objectives: To investigate the accuracy of MRI in subgroups of pregnant women, children, and adults. To investigate the potential influence of MRI scanning variables such as sequences, slice thickness, or field of view.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until February 2021. We searched the references of included studies and other systematic reviews to identify further studies. We did not exclude studies that were unpublished, published in another language, or retrospective.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared the outcome of an MRI scan for suspected appendicitis with a reference standard of histology, intraoperative findings, or clinical follow-up. Three study team members independently filtered search results for eligible studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted study data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate model to calculate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 58 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis including a total of 7462 participants (1980 with and 5482 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.18 to 1.0; estimates of specificity ranged from 0.4 to 1.0. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.97); summary specificity was 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97). Sensitivity and specificity remained high on subgroup analysis for pregnant women (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99); specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98); 21 studies, 2282 women); children (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98); 17 studies, 2794 children); and adults (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97); specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.98); 9 studies, 1088 participants), as well as different scanning techniques. In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, there would be 12 false-positive results and 30 false-negative results. Methodological quality of the included studies was poor, and the risk of bias was high or unclear in 53% to 83% of the QUADAS-2 domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MRI appears to be highly accurate in confirming and excluding acute appendicitis in adults, children, and pregnant women regardless of protocol. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low due to incomplete and low standards of follow-up, so summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity may be biased. We could not assess the impact and direction of potential bias given the very low number of high-quality studies. Studies comparing MRI protocols were few, and although we found no influence of MRI protocol variables on the summary estimates of accuracy, our results do not rule out that some MRI protocols are more accurate than others.

Prospective Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of MR Imaging versus CT for Acute Appendicitis

Purpose To compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with that of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in emergency department (ED) patients. Materials and Methods This was an institutional review board-approved, prospective, observational study of ED patients at an academic medical center (February 2012 to August 2014). Eligible patients were nonpregnant and 12- year-old or older patients in whom a CT study had been ordered for evaluation for appendicitis. After informed consent was obtained, CT and MR imaging (with non-contrast material-enhanced, diffusion-weighted, and intravenous contrast-enhanced sequences) were performed in tandem, and the images were subsequently retrospectively interpreted in random order by three abdominal radiologists who were blinded to the patients' clinical outcomes. Likelihood of appendicitis was rated on a five-point scale for both CT and MR imaging. A composite reference standard of surgical and histopathologic results and clinical follow-up was used, arbitrated by an expert panel of three investigators. Test characteristics were calculated and reported as point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Analysis included images of 198 patients (114 women [58%]; mean age, 31.6 years ± 14.2 [range, 12-81 years]; prevalence of appendicitis, 32.3%). The sensitivity and specificity were 96.9% (95% CI: 88.2%, 99.5%) and 81.3% (95% CI: 73.5%, 87.3%) for MR imaging and 98.4% (95% CI: 90.5%, 99.9%) and 89.6% (95% CI: 82.8%, 94.0%) for CT, respectively, when a cutoff point of 3 or higher was used. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 5.2 (95% CI: 3.7, 7.7) and 0.04 (95% CI: 0, 0.11) for MR imaging and 9.4 (95% CI: 5.9, 16.4) and 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.06) for CT, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the optimal cutoff point to maximize accuracy was 4 or higher, at which point there was no difference between MR imaging and CT. Conclusion The diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging was similar to that of CT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis in the general population

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies since 2005 that evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the general population presenting to emergency departments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All retrospective and prospective studies evaluating the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis published in English and listed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl Plus, and the Cochrane Library since 2005 were included. Excluded studies were those without an explicitly stated reference standard, with insufficient data to calculate the study outcomes, or if the population enrolled was limited to pregnant women or children. Data were abstracted by one investigator and confirmed by another. Data included the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives, false negatives, number of equivocal cases, type of MRI scanner, type of MRI sequence, and demographic data including study setting and gender distribution. Summary test characteristics were calculated. Forest plots and a summary receiver operator characteristic plot were generated.

RESULTS

Ten studies met eligibility criteria, representing patients from seven countries. Nine were prospective and two were multicenter studies. A total of 838 subjects were enrolled; 406 (48%) were women. All studies routinely used unenhanced MR images, although two used intravenous contrast-enhancement and three used diffusion-weighted imaging. Using a bivariate random-effects model the summary sensitivity was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.3%-98.5%) and summary specificity was 95.9% (95% CI: 89.4%-98.4%).

CONCLUSION

MRI has a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of appendicitis, similar to that reported previously for computed tomography. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;43:1346-1354.

Imaging for appendicitis: should radiation-induced cancer risks affect modality selection?

PURPOSE

To compare life expectancy (LE) losses attributable to three imaging strategies for appendicitis in adults-computed tomography (CT), ultrasonography (US) followed by CT for negative or indeterminate US results, and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-by using a decision-analytic model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this model, for each imaging strategy, LE losses for 20-, 40-, and 65-year-old men and women were computed as a function of five key variables: baseline cohort LE, test performance, surgical mortality, risk of death from delayed diagnosis (missed appendicitis), and LE loss attributable to radiation-induced cancer death. Appendicitis prevalence, test performance, mortality rates from surgery and missed appendicitis, and radiation doses from CT were elicited from the published literature and institutional data. LE loss attributable to radiation exposure was projected by using a separate organ-specific model that accounted for anatomic coverage during a typical abdominopelvic CT examination. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate effects of model input variability on results.

RESULTS

Outcomes across imaging strategies differed minimally-for example, for 20-year-old men, corresponding LE losses were 5.8 days (MR imaging), 6.8 days (combined US and CT), and 8.2 days (CT). This order was sensitive to differences in test performance but was insensitive to variation in radiation-induced cancer deaths. For example, in the same cohort, MR imaging sensitivity had to be 91% at minimum (if specificity were 100%), and MR imaging specificity had to be 62% at minimum (if sensitivity were 100%) to incur the least LE loss. Conversely, LE loss attributable to radiation exposure would need to decrease by 74-fold for combined US and CT, instead of MR imaging, to incur the least LE loss.

CONCLUSION

The specific imaging strategy used to diagnose appendicitis minimally affects outcomes. Paradigm shifts to MR imaging owing to concerns over radiation should be considered only if MR imaging test performance is very high.