Jungheum Cho1, Seungjae Lee2, Hooney Daniel Min1, Hae Young Kim1, Yousun Ko3, Ji Hoon Park1,2,4, Sung Bin Park5, Kyoung Ho Lee1,2,4,6. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. 2. Department of Applied Bioengineering, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. 3. Biomedical Research Center, Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. 5. Department of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 06973, Korea. pksungbin@paran.com. 6. Interdisciplinary Program in Bioengineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT (CDCT, typically 7-8 mSv) regarding final diagnosis and patient disposition following equivocal CT results in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: In total, 3074 patients of 15-44 years (28 ± 9 years, 1672 women) from 20 hospitals were randomized to undergo contrast-enhanced 2-mSv CT (n = 1535) or CDCT (n = 1539) from December 2013 through August 2016. One hundred sixty-one radiologists prospectively rated the likelihood of appendicitis in a Likert scale (i.e., grades 1-5). The final diagnosis was based on CT image, surgical, pathologic, and clinical findings. Post hoc analysis was performed for final diagnosis, surgical procedure, and delay in patient management following equivocal results (i.e., grade 3). RESULTS: The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups were comparable for final diagnosis following equivocal results, including confirmed appendicitis (1.2% [18 patients] vs. 1.2% [19], p > 0.99), negative appendectomy (0.1% [2] vs. 0.3% [4], p = 0.53), and perforated appendicitis (0.1% [1] vs. 0.2% [3], p = 0.53). More patients were confirmed as not having appendicitis following equivocal results in the CDCT group than in the 2-mSv CT group (2.2% [34] vs. 1.0% [16], p = 0.016). The two groups were comparable for the need of appendectomy (1.4% [22] vs. 1.5% [23], p > 0.99), need of additional imaging tests (0.7% [11] vs. 1.1% [17], p = 0.35), and delay in patient management following equivocal results. CONCLUSION:2-mSv CT is comparable to CDCT regarding final diagnosis and patient disposition following equivocal CT results. KEY POINTS: • Our results strengthen evidence justifying the use of low-dose CT instead of conventional-dose CT (CDCT) in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis. • The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups were comparable for final diagnosis following equivocal CT results, including confirmed appendicitis (1.2% vs. 1.2%, p > 0.99), negative appendectomy (0.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.53), and perforated appendicitis (0.1% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.53). • The two groups were comparable for the need for appendectomy (1.4% vs. 1.5%, p > 0.99), need for additional imaging tests (0.7% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.35), and delay in patient management, following equivocal CT results.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT (CDCT, typically 7-8 mSv) regarding final diagnosis and patient disposition following equivocal CT results in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: In total, 3074 patients of 15-44 years (28 ± 9 years, 1672 women) from 20 hospitals were randomized to undergo contrast-enhanced 2-mSv CT (n = 1535) or CDCT (n = 1539) from December 2013 through August 2016. One hundred sixty-one radiologists prospectively rated the likelihood of appendicitis in a Likert scale (i.e., grades 1-5). The final diagnosis was based on CT image, surgical, pathologic, and clinical findings. Post hoc analysis was performed for final diagnosis, surgical procedure, and delay in patient management following equivocal results (i.e., grade 3). RESULTS: The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups were comparable for final diagnosis following equivocal results, including confirmed appendicitis (1.2% [18 patients] vs. 1.2% [19], p > 0.99), negative appendectomy (0.1% [2] vs. 0.3% [4], p = 0.53), and perforated appendicitis (0.1% [1] vs. 0.2% [3], p = 0.53). More patients were confirmed as not having appendicitis following equivocal results in the CDCT group than in the 2-mSv CT group (2.2% [34] vs. 1.0% [16], p = 0.016). The two groups were comparable for the need of appendectomy (1.4% [22] vs. 1.5% [23], p > 0.99), need of additional imaging tests (0.7% [11] vs. 1.1% [17], p = 0.35), and delay in patient management following equivocal results. CONCLUSION: 2-mSv CT is comparable to CDCT regarding final diagnosis and patient disposition following equivocal CT results. KEY POINTS: • Our results strengthen evidence justifying the use of low-dose CT instead of conventional-dose CT (CDCT) in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis. • The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups were comparable for final diagnosis following equivocal CT results, including confirmed appendicitis (1.2% vs. 1.2%, p > 0.99), negative appendectomy (0.1% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.53), and perforated appendicitis (0.1% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.53). • The two groups were comparable for the need for appendectomy (1.4% vs. 1.5%, p > 0.99), need for additional imaging tests (0.7% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.35), and delay in patient management, following equivocal CT results.