Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제23권4호
  • /
  • Pages.413-425
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Jungheum Cho (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Youngjune Kim (Aerospace Medical Group, Air Force Education and Training Command) ;
  • Seungjae Lee (Department of Applied Bioengineering, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Hooney Daniel Min (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Yousun Ko (Biomedical Research Center, Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Choong Guen Chee (Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Hae Young Kim (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Ji Hoon Park (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Kyoung Ho Lee (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • LOCAT Group (LOCAT Group)
  • 투고 : 2021.06.21
  • 심사 : 2021.10.10
  • 발행 : 2022.04.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: We compared appendiceal visualization on 2-mSv CT vs. conventional-dose CT (median 7 mSv) in adolescents and young adults and analyzed the undesirable clinical and diagnostic outcomes that followed appendiceal nonvisualization. Materials and Methods: A total of 3074 patients aged 15-44 years (mean ± standard deviation, 28 ± 9 years; 1672 female) from 20 hospitals were randomized to the 2-mSv CT or conventional-dose CT group (1535 vs. 1539) from December 2013 through August 2016. A total of 161 radiologists from 20 institutions prospectively rated appendiceal visualization (grade 0, not identified; grade 1, unsure or partly visualized; and grade 2, clearly and entirely visualized) and the presence of appendicitis in these patients. The final diagnosis was based on CT imaging and surgical, pathologic, and clinical findings. We analyzed undesirable clinical or diagnostic outcomes, such as negative appendectomy, perforated appendicitis, more extensive than simple appendectomy, delay in patient management, or incorrect CT diagnosis, which followed appendiceal nonvisualization (defined as grade 0 or 1) and compared the outcomes between the two groups. Results: In the 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT groups, appendiceal visualization was rated as grade 0 in 41 (2.7%) and 18 (1.2%) patients, respectively; grade 1 in 181 (11.8%) and 81 (5.3%) patients, respectively; and grade 2 in 1304 (85.0%) and 1421 (92.3%) patients, respectively (p < 0.001). Overall, undesirable outcomes were rare in both groups. Compared to the conventional-dose CT group, the 2-mSv CT group had slightly higher rates of perforated appendicitis (1.1% [17] vs. 0.5% [7], p = 0.06) and false-negative diagnoses (0.4% [6] vs. 0.0% [0], p = 0.01) following appendiceal nonvisualization. Otherwise, these two groups were comparable. Conclusion: The use of 2-mSv CT instead of conventional-dose CT impairs appendiceal visualization in more patients. However, appendiceal nonvisualization on 2-mSv CT rarely leads to undesirable clinical or diagnostic outcomes.

키워드

과제정보

The data in our study were obtained from the database of a randomized controlled trial by the LOCAT Group.

참고문헌

  1. Terasawa T, Blackmore CC, Bent S, Kohlwes RJ. Systematic review: computed tomography and ultrasonography to detect acute appendicitis in adults and adolescents. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:537-546 
  2. Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, Epelman M, Beyene J, Schuh S, et al. US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? A meta-analysis. Radiology 2006;241:83-94 
  3. van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Ubbink DT, Stoker J, Boermeester MA. Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology 2008;249:97-106 
  4. Cuschieri J, Florence M, Flum DR, Jurkovich GJ, Lin P, Steele SR, et al. Negative appendectomy and imaging accuracy in the Washington state surgical care and outcomes assessment program. Ann Surg 2008;248:557-563 
  5. Park JH; LOCAT Group. Diagnostic imaging utilization in cases of acute appendicitis: multi-center experience. J Korean Med Sci 2014;29:1308-1316 
  6. Rud B, Vejborg TS, Rappeport ED, Reitsma JB, Wille-Jorgensen P. Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;2019:CD009977 
  7. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim S, Lee YJ, Kim KP, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1596-1605 
  8. LOCAT Group. Low-dose CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adolescents and young adults (LOCAT): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;2:793-804 
  9. Ganguli S, Raptopoulos V, Komlos F, Siewert B, Kruskal JB. Right lower quadrant pain: value of the nonvisualized appendix in patients at multidetector CT. Radiology 2006;241:175-180 
  10. Nikolaidis P, Hwang CM, Miller FH, Papanicolaou N. The nonvisualized appendix: incidence of acute appendicitis when secondary inflammatory changes are absent. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:889-892 
  11. Garcia K, Hernanz-Schulman M, Bennett DL, Morrow SE, Yu C, Kan JH. Suspected appendicitis in children: diagnostic importance of normal abdominopelvic CT findings with nonvisualized appendix. Radiology 2009;250:531-537 
  12. Kim HJ, Lee KH, Kim MJ, Park SB, Ko Y; LOCAT Group. Using 2-mSv appendiceal CT in usual practice for adolescents and young adults: willingness survey of 579 radiologists, emergency physicians, and surgeons from 20 hospitals. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:68-76 
  13. LOCAT. What is LOCAT? Low-dOse CT of Appendicitis Trial. LOCAT.org. Web site. www.locat.org. Accessed June 17, 2021 
  14. Ahn S; LOCAT group. LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014;15:28 
  15. Ford I, Norrie J. Pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med 2016;375:454-463 
  16. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P; CONSORT Group. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:295-309 
  17. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008;337:a2390 
  18. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 2015;277:826-832 
  19. Park SB, Kim MJ, Ko Y, Sim JY, Kim HJ, Lee KH; LOCAT Group. 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. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:246-255 
  20. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000;215:337-348 
  21. Pinto Leite N, Pereira JM, Cunha R, Pinto P, Sirlin C. CT evaluation of appendicitis and its complications: imaging techniques and key diagnostic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:406-417 
  22. Yang HK, Ko Y, Lee MH, Woo H, Ahn S, Kim B, et al. Initial performance of radiologists and radiology residents in interpreting low-dose (2-mSv) appendiceal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:W594-W611 
  23. NIH. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0. Ctep.cancer.gov Web site. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm#ctc_40. Published June 14, 2010. Accessed June 14, 2021 
  24. Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Stemmermann GN, Lantz PE, Isaacson PG. Nonneoplastic diseases of the appendix. In: Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Stemmermann GN, Lantz PE, Isaacson PG, eds. Gastrointestinal pathology: an atalas and text, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008:504-505 
  25. Kim HJ, Kim MS, Park JH, Ahn S, Ko Y, Song SY, et al. Meaningful standard of reference for appendiceal perforation: pathology, surgery, or both? Ann Surg Treat Res 2017;93:88-97 
  26. Scott JW, Loehrer AP. The utility of perforated appendix rate as a proxy for timely access to care. JAMA Surg 2020;155:1081-1082 
  27. Velanovich V, Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg 1992;58:264-269 
  28. Pepe MS, Alonzo TA. Comparing disease screening tests when true disease status is ascertained only for screen positives. Biostatistics 2001;2:249-260 
  29. Kim HY, Ko Y, Park JH, Lee KH; LOCAT Group. Detection and false-referral rates of 2-mSv CT relative to standard-dose CT for appendiceal perforation: pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;215:874-884 
  30. Mehrotra DV, Chan IS, Berger RL. A cautionary note on exact unconditional inference for a difference between two independent binomial proportions. Biometrics 2003;59:441-450 
  31. Joo SM, Lee KH, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim K, Kim KJ, et al. Detection of the normal appendix with low-dose unenhanced CT: use of the sliding slab averaging technique. Radiology 2009;251:780-787 
  32. Park HR, Park SB, Lee ES, Park HJ, Lee JB, Kim YS. Unenhanced computed tomography for normal appendix detection: comparison of low-dose with statistical iterative reconstruction and regular-dose with filtered back projection. Clin Imaging 2017;43:117-121 
  33. Sim JY, Kim HJ, Yeon JW, Suh BS, Kim KH, Ha YR, et al. Added value of ultrasound re-evaluation for patients with equivocal CT findings of acute appendicitis: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 2013;23:1882-1890