Sorapop Kiatpongsan1, Lesley Meng, Jonathan D Eisenberg, Maurice Herring, Laura L Avery, Chung Yin Kong, Pari V Pandharipande. 1. From the Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, 101 Merrimac St, 10th Floor, Boston, MA 02114 (S.K., L.M., J.D.E., M.H., C.Y.K., P.V.P.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand (S.K.); Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (L.L.A., C.Y.K., P.V.P.); and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (C.Y.K., P.V.P.).
Abstract
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.
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.
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: Marjolein M N Leeuwenburgh; Bart M Wiarda; Sebastiaan Jensch; H Wouter van Es; Hein B A C Stockmann; Jan Willem C Gratama; Lodewijk P J Cobben; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Marja A Boermeester; Jaap Stoker Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Elizaveta Chabanova; Ingegerd Balslev; Michael Achiam; Yousef W Nielsen; Sven Adamsen; Peter Gocht-Jensen; Steffen K Brisling; Vibeke B Logager; Henrik S Thomsen Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2010-03-29 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Lucy B Spalluto; Courtney A Woodfield; Carolynn M DeBenedectis; Elizabeth Lazarus Journal: Radiographics Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Pari V Pandharipande; Jonathan D Eisenberg; Richard J Lee; Michael E Gilmore; Ekin A Turan; Sarabjeet Singh; Mannudeep K Kalra; Bob Liu; Chung Yin Kong; G Scott Gazelle Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 11.105