5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI Versus CT for the Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis in Children and Young Adults

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d5832429e210">OBJECTIVE</h5> <p id="P1">Appendicitis is frequently diagnosed in the emergency department, most commonly using CT. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI with that of contrast-enhanced CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adolescents when interpreted by abdominal radiologists and pediatric radiologists. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d5832429e215">SUBJECTS AND METHODS</h5> <p id="P2">Our study included a prospectively enrolled cohort of 48 patients (12–20 years old) with nontraumatic abdominal pain who underwent CT and MRI. Fellowship-trained abdominal and pediatric radiologists reviewed all CT and MRI studies in randomized order, blinded to patient outcome. Likelihood for appendicitis was rated on a 5-point scale (1, definitely not appendicitis; 5, definitely appendicitis) for CT, the unenhanced portion of the MRI, and the entire contrast-enhanced MRI study. ROC curves were generated and AUC compared for each scan type for all six readers and then stratified by radiologist type. Image test characteristics, interrater reliability, and reading times were compared. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d5832429e220">RESULTS</h5> <p id="P3">Sensitivity and specificity were 85.9% (95% CI, 76.2–92.7%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 89.7–96.7%) for unenhanced MRI, 93.6% (95% CI, 85.6–97.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI, 90.2–97%) for contrast-enhanced MRI, and 93.6% (95% CI, 85.6–97.9%) and 94.3% (95% CI, 90.2–97%) for CT. No difference was found in the diagnostic accuracy or interpretation time when comparing abdominal radiologists to pediatric radiologists (CT, 3.0 min vs 2.8 min; contrast-enhanced MRI, 2.4 min vs 1.8 min; unenhanced MRI, 1.5 min vs 2.3 min). Substantial agreement between abdominal and pediatric radiologists was seen for all methods (κ = 0.72–0.83). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d5832429e225">CONCLUSION</h5> <p id="P4">The diagnostic accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis was very similar to CT. No statistically significant difference in accuracy was observed between imaging modality or radiologist subspecialty. </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Changing epidemiology of acute appendicitis in the United States: study period 1993-2008.

          Addis et al. [5] described the epidemiology of appendicitis in the United States from 1970 to 1984. He reported that while overall incidence decreased, the highest incidence of appendicitis occurred in 10- to 19-y-olds. This study examines if the incidence of appendicitis and mean age of diagnosis has changed, and whether demographics are related to the frequency of admissions and incidence rate of acute appendicitis (AA). Study questions were assessed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) discharge data and US Census data from 1993-2008. Operatively managed, uncomplicated, and complex cases of AA were included. Incidental appendectomy and right hemicolectomy were excluded. Descriptive, ANOVA, χ(2), and test of proportion statistics were used to evaluate frequency of admissions, incidence rate, and demographic changes in appendicitis. The annual rate of AA increased from 7.62 to 9.38 per 10,000 between 1993 and 2008. The highest frequency of AA was found in the 10-19 y age group, however occurrence in this group decreased by 4.6%. Persons between ages 30 and 69 y old experienced an increase of AA by 6.3%. AA rates remained higher in males. Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans saw a rise in the frequency of AA, while the frequencies among Whites and Blacks decreased. While AA is most common in persons 10- to 19-y old, the mean age at diagnosis has increased over time. Minorities are experiencing an increase in the frequency of appendicitis. The changing demographics of the US plays a role in the current epidemiology of appendicitis, but is not solely responsible for the change observed. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective.

            To estimate the correlation between the negative appendectomy rate (NAR) and the rate of preoperative computed tomography (CT) in patients suspected of having acute appendicitis who presented to the emergency department during an 18-year period. This retrospective institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study was performed in a 719-bed tertiary care adult teaching hospital with 58,000 annual emergency department visits. The authors obtained a waiver of informed consent and used the medical records system to compare patients suspected of having appendicitis who presented to the emergency department between 2003 and 2007 to those who presented between 1990 and 1994, the period just before CT became commonly used at the authors' institution for the evaluation of appendicitis. Surgical and pathology reports were reviewed to determine the NAR, and the authors queried the radiology databases to determine the proportion of appendectomy patients who underwent preoperative imaging. Outcome measures included the NAR, the proportion of appendectomy patients who underwent preoperative CT, and the annual number of appendectomies performed. The chi(2) test for trend was used to assess for changes in proportions, and linear regression was used to evaluate numeric trends. From 1990 to 2007, the NAR decreased significantly from 23.0% to 1.7% (P < .0001), the annual number of appendectomies decreased significantly from 217 per year to 119 per year (P = .0003), and the proportion of patients undergoing appendectomy who underwent preoperative CT increased significantly from 1% to 97.5% (P < .0001). There was a significant reduction in both the NAR and the number of appendectomies in patients who presented to the emergency department during an 18-year period, which was associated with a significant increase in the use of preoperative abdominal CT.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis.

              Use of preoperative computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis has dramatically increased since the introduction of multidetector CT (MDCT) scanners. To evaluate the diagnostic performance of MDCT for suspected acute appendicitis in adults. Analysis of MDCT findings and clinical outcomes of consecutive adults referred for MDCT for suspected appendicitis from January 2000 to December 2009. Single academic medical center in the United States. 2871 adults. Interpretation of nonfocused abdominopelvic MDCT scans by radiologists who were aware of the study indication. Posttest assessment of diagnostic performance of MDCT for acute appendicitis, according to the reference standard of final combined clinical, surgical, and pathology findings. 675 of 2871 patients (23.5%) had confirmed acute appendicitis. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of MDCT were 98.5% (95% CI, 97.3% to 99.2%) (665 of 675 patients), 98.0% (CI, 97.4% to 98.6%) (2153 of 2196 patients), 99.5% (CI, 99.2% to 99.8%) (2153 of 2163 patients), and 93.9% (CI, 91.9% to 95.5%) (665 of 708 patients), respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 51.3 (CI, 38.1 to 69.0) and 0.015 (CI, 0.008 to 0.028), respectively. The overall rate of negative findings at appendectomy was 7.5% (CI, 5.8% to 9.7%) (54 of 716 patients), but would have decreased to 4.1% (28 of 690 patients) had surgery been avoided in 26 cases with true-negative findings on MDCT. The overall perforation rate was 17.8% (120 of 675 patients) but progressively decreased from 28.9% in 2000 to 11.5% in 2009. Multidetector computed tomography provided or suggested an alternative diagnosis in 893 of 2122 patients (42.1%) without appendicitis or appendectomy. Possible referral bias, because some patients whose appendicitis was difficult to diagnose on clinical grounds may not have been referred for MDCT for evaluation of suspected appendicitis. Multidetector computed tomography is a useful test for routine evaluation of suspected appendicitis in adults. None.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                American Journal of Roentgenology
                American Journal of Roentgenology
                American Roentgen Ray Society
                0361-803X
                1546-3141
                October 2017
                October 2017
                : 209
                : 4
                : 911-919
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53705.
                [2 ]Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
                [3 ]BerbeeWalsh Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
                [4 ]Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
                [5 ]Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
                [6 ]Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
                Article
                10.2214/AJR.16.17413
                5639901
                28796552
                0455c83e-5b18-4f7b-9d3f-077f8c768d25
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article