OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare CT with conventional and simulated reduced-tube current in the evaluation for acute appendicitis in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Validated noise-addition (tube current-reduction) software was used to create 50% and 75% tube current reductions in 60 CT examinations performed for suspected appendicitis, resulting in 180 image sets. Three blinded pediatric radiologists scored the randomized studies for the following factors: presence of the normal appendix or appendicitis (5-point scale; 1=definitely absent and 5=definitely present), presence of alternate diagnoses, and overall image quality (1=nondiagnostic and 5=excellent). Truth was defined by the interpretation of the conventional examination. RESULTS: For conventional examinations, the total number of reviews (60 cases×3 readers=180) in which the normal appendix was identified was 120 of 180 (66.7%), compared with 108 of 180 (60%) in the 50% (p=0.19) and 91 of 180 (50.6%) in the 75% (p=0.002) tube current-reduction groups. Appendicitis was identified in a total of 39 of 180 (21.7%), 38 of 180 (21.1%), and 37 of 180 (20.6%) examinations, respectively (p>0.05). This translates to sensitivities of 97% and 95% for the 50% and 75% tube current-reduction groups, respectively. Alternate diagnoses were detected in 14%, 16%, and 13% of scans, respectively. Compared with conventional-tube current examinations, reader confidence and assessment of image quality were significantly decreased for both tube current-reduction groups. CONCLUSION: Simulated tube current-reduction technology provides for systematic evaluation of diagnostic thresholds. Application of this technology in the setting of suspected appendicitis shows that tube current can be reduced by at least 50% without significantly affecting diagnostic quality, despite a decrease in reader confidence and assessment of image quality.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare CT with conventional and simulated reduced-tube current in the evaluation for acute appendicitis in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Validated noise-addition (tube current-reduction) software was used to create 50% and 75% tube current reductions in 60 CT examinations performed for suspected appendicitis, resulting in 180 image sets. Three blinded pediatric radiologists scored the randomized studies for the following factors: presence of the normal appendix or appendicitis (5-point scale; 1=definitely absent and 5=definitely present), presence of alternate diagnoses, and overall image quality (1=nondiagnostic and 5=excellent). Truth was defined by the interpretation of the conventional examination. RESULTS: For conventional examinations, the total number of reviews (60 cases×3 readers=180) in which the normal appendix was identified was 120 of 180 (66.7%), compared with 108 of 180 (60%) in the 50% (p=0.19) and 91 of 180 (50.6%) in the 75% (p=0.002) tube current-reduction groups. Appendicitis was identified in a total of 39 of 180 (21.7%), 38 of 180 (21.1%), and 37 of 180 (20.6%) examinations, respectively (p>0.05). This translates to sensitivities of 97% and 95% for the 50% and 75% tube current-reduction groups, respectively. Alternate diagnoses were detected in 14%, 16%, and 13% of scans, respectively. Compared with conventional-tube current examinations, reader confidence and assessment of image quality were significantly decreased for both tube current-reduction groups. CONCLUSION: Simulated tube current-reduction technology provides for systematic evaluation of diagnostic thresholds. Application of this technology in the setting of suspected appendicitis shows that tube current can be reduced by at least 50% without significantly affecting diagnostic quality, despite a decrease in reader confidence and assessment of image quality.
Authors: Hedvig Hricak; David J Brenner; S James Adelstein; Donald P Frush; Eric J Hall; Roger W Howell; Cynthia H McCollough; Fred A Mettler; Mark S Pearce; Orhan H Suleiman; James H Thrall; Louis K Wagner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Priyanka Prakash; Mannudeep K Kalra; Avinash K Kambadakone; Homer Pien; Jiang Hsieh; Michael A Blake; Dushyant V Sahani Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Kyuseok Kim; Young Hoon Kim; So Yeon Kim; Suyoung Kim; Yoon Jin Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Hye Seung Lee; Soyeon Ahn; Taeyun Kim; Seung-sik Hwang; Ki Jun Song; Sung-Bum Kang; Duck-Woo Kim; Seong Ho Park; Kyoung Ho Lee Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nancy R Fefferman; Elan Bomsztyk; Angela M Yim; Rafael Rivera; John B Amodio; Lynne P Pinkney; Naomi A Strubel; Marilyn E Noz; Henry Rusinek Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Boaz Karmazyn; Donald P Frush; Kimberly E Applegate; Charles Maxfield; Mervyn D Cohen; Robert P Jones Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Marilyn J Goske; Keith J Strauss; Laura P Coombs; Keith E Mandel; Alexander J Towbin; David B Larson; Michael J Callahan; Kassa Darge; Daniel J Podberesky; Donald P Frush; Sjirk J Westra; Jeffrey S Prince Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jennifer S Ngo; Justin B Solomon; Ehsan Samei; Taylor Richards; Lawrence Ngo; Alaattin Erkanli; Bohui Zhang; Brian C Allen; Joseph T Davis; Amrita Devalapalli; Raymond Groller; Daniele Marin; Charles M Maxfield; Vishwan Pamarthi; Bhavik N Patel; Gary R Schooler; Donald P Frush Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2019-09-27