OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare low-dose unenhanced CT with standard-dose i.v. contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred seven adults with suspected appendicitis underwent CT with mean effective doses of both 4.2 and 8.0 mSv. Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed thin-section images by sliding a 5-mm-thick ray-sum slab. They rated the likelihood of appendicitis and appendiceal visualization on 5- and 3-point scales, respectively, and proposed alternative diagnoses. Likelihood > or = 3 was considered a positive diagnosis. Receiver operating characteristics analysis, the McNemar test, and the Wilcoxon's signed-rank test were used. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients had appendicitis. The values of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve were 0.98 for the low-dose unenhanced acquisition and 0.97 for the standard-dose contrast-enhanced acquisition for reader 1 (95% CI for the difference, -0.02 to 0.03) and 0.99 and 0.98 (-0.02 to 0.02) for reader 2. Sensitivity was 98.7% for low-dose unenhanced CT and 100% for standard-dose contrast-enhanced CT for reader 1 (p = 1.00) and 100% for both techniques for reader 2. Specificity was 95.3% and 93.0% (p = 0.25) and 96.9% and 96.9%. The interpretation was indeterminate (score 3) in 0.5% and 1.4% of cases for reader 1 (p = 0.63) and 0.5% and 0% for reader 2 (p = 1.00). A normal appendix was not visualized in 5.4% and 3.9% of cases by reader 1 (p = 0.63) and 3.9% and 2.3% of cases by reader 2 (p = 0.50). None of the patients whose appendix was not visualized had appendicitis. Diagnostic confidence, visualization score for a normal appendix, and correct alternative diagnosis tended to be compromised with use of low-dose unenhanced CT, showing a significant difference for a reader's confidence in the diagnosis of appendicitis (p = 0.004). The two techniques were comparable in the diagnosis of appendiceal perforation. CONCLUSION: Low-dose unenhanced CT is potentially useful in the diagnosis of appendicitis.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare low-dose unenhanced CT with standard-dose i.v. contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred seven adults with suspected appendicitis underwent CT with mean effective doses of both 4.2 and 8.0 mSv. Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed thin-section images by sliding a 5-mm-thick ray-sum slab. They rated the likelihood of appendicitis and appendiceal visualization on 5- and 3-point scales, respectively, and proposed alternative diagnoses. Likelihood > or = 3 was considered a positive diagnosis. Receiver operating characteristics analysis, the McNemar test, and the Wilcoxon's signed-rank test were used. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients had appendicitis. The values of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve were 0.98 for the low-dose unenhanced acquisition and 0.97 for the standard-dose contrast-enhanced acquisition for reader 1 (95% CI for the difference, -0.02 to 0.03) and 0.99 and 0.98 (-0.02 to 0.02) for reader 2. Sensitivity was 98.7% for low-dose unenhanced CT and 100% for standard-dose contrast-enhanced CT for reader 1 (p = 1.00) and 100% for both techniques for reader 2. Specificity was 95.3% and 93.0% (p = 0.25) and 96.9% and 96.9%. The interpretation was indeterminate (score 3) in 0.5% and 1.4% of cases for reader 1 (p = 0.63) and 0.5% and 0% for reader 2 (p = 1.00). A normal appendix was not visualized in 5.4% and 3.9% of cases by reader 1 (p = 0.63) and 3.9% and 2.3% of cases by reader 2 (p = 0.50). None of the patients whose appendix was not visualized had appendicitis. Diagnostic confidence, visualization score for a normal appendix, and correct alternative diagnosis tended to be compromised with use of low-dose unenhanced CT, showing a significant difference for a reader's confidence in the diagnosis of appendicitis (p = 0.004). The two techniques were comparable in the diagnosis of appendiceal perforation. CONCLUSION: Low-dose unenhanced CT is potentially useful in the diagnosis of appendicitis.
Authors: Benjamin D Godwin; Frederick T Drake; Vlad V Simianu; Jabi E Shriki; Daniel S Hippe; Manjiri Dighe; Sarah Bastawrous; Carlos Cuevas; David Flum; Puneet Bhargava Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Vlad V Simianu; Anna Shamitoff; Daniel S Hippe; Benjamin D Godwin; Jabi E Shriki; Frederick T Drake; Ryan B O'Malley; Suresh Maximin; Sarah Bastawrous; Mariam Moshiri; Jean H Lee; Carlos Cuevas; Manjiri Dighe; David Flum; Puneet Bhargava Journal: Curr Probl Diagn Radiol Date: 2016-08-02
Authors: Ji Hoon Park; Jong-June Jeon; Sung Soo Lee; Amar C Dhanantwari; Ji Ye Sim; Hae Young Kim; Kyoung Ho Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Pierre-Alexandre Poletti; Alexandra Platon; Thomas De Perrot; Francois Sarasin; Elisabeth Andereggen; Olivier Rutschmann; Elise Dupuis-Lozeron; Thomas Perneger; Pascal Gervaz; Christoph D Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M J Lahaye; D M J Lambregts; E Mutsaers; B A B Essers; S Breukink; V C Cappendijk; G L Beets; R G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315