Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제24권6호
  • /
  • Pages.529-540
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Radiology Residents' Independent Diagnosis of Appendicitis Using 2-mSv Computed Tomography: A Secondary Analysis of a Large Pragmatic Randomized Trial

  • Jungheum Cho (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Hae Young Kim (Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Seungjae Lee (Department of Applied Bioengineering, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Ji Hoon Park (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Kyoung Ho Lee (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2023.01.08
  • 심사 : 2023.04.04
  • 발행 : 2023.06.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance and clinical outcomes of 2-mSv computed tomography (CT) and conventional-dose CT (CDCT), following radiology residents' interpretation of CT examinations for suspected appendicitis. Materials and Methods: Altogether, 3074 patients with suspected appendicitis aged 15-44 years (28 ± 9 years, 1672 females) from 20 hospitals were randomly assigned to the 2-mSv CT (n = 1535) or CDCT (n = 1539) groups in a pragmatic trial from December 2013 and August 2016. Overall, 107 radiology residents participated in the trial as readers in the form of daily practice after online training for 2-mSv CT. They made preliminary CT reports, which were later finalized by attending radiologists via addendum reports, for 640 and 657 patients in the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups, respectively. We compared the diagnostic performance of the residents, discrepancies between preliminary and addendum reports, and clinical outcomes between the two groups. Results: Patient characteristics were similar between the 640 and 657 patients. Residents' diagnostic performance was not significantly different between the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups, with a sensitivity of 96.0% and 97.1%, respectively (difference [95% confidence interval {CI}], -1.1% [-4.9%, 2.6%]; P = 0.69) and specificity of 93.2% and 93.1%, respectively (0.1% [-3.6%, 3.7%]; P > 0.99). The 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups did not significantly differ in discrepancies between the preliminary and addendum reports regarding the presence of appendicitis (3.3% vs. 5.2%; -1.9% [-4.2%, 0.4%]; P = 0.12) and alternative diagnosis (5.5% vs. 6.4%; -0.9% [-3.6%, 1.8%]; P = 0.56). The rates of perforated appendicitis (12.0% vs. 12.6%; -0.6% [-4.3%, 3.1%]; P = 0.81) and negative appendectomies (1.9% vs. 1.1%; 0.8% [-0.7%, 2.3%]; P = 0.33) were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion: Diagnostic performance and clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the 2-mSv CT and CDCT groups following radiology residents' CT readings for suspected appendicitis.

키워드

과제정보

The data in our study were obtained from the database of a randomized controlled trial by the LOCAT Group.

참고문헌

  1. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim S, Lee YJ, Kim KP, et al. Lowdose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1596-1605
  2. LOCAT Group. Low-dose CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adolescents and young adults (LOCAT): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;2:793-804
  3. Rud B, Vejborg TS, Rappeport ED, Reitsma JB, Wille-Jorgensen P. Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;2019:CD009977
  4. Park JH, Salminen P, Tannaphai P, Lee KH. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis in adolescents and young adults: review of evidence. Korean J Radiol 2022;23:517-528
  5. Kim HJ, Lee KH, Kim MJ, Park SB, Ko Y; LOCAT Group. Using 2-mSv appendiceal CT in usual practice for adolescents and young adults: willingness survey of 579 radiologists, emergency physicians, and surgeons from 20 hospitals. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:68-76
  6. Hunter TB, Taljanovic MS, Krupinski E, Ovitt T, Stubbs AY. Academic radiologists' on-call and late-evening duties. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:716-719
  7. Bruno MA, Duncan JR, Bierhals AJ, Tappouni R. Overnight resident versus 24-hour attending radiologist coverage in academic medical centers. Radiology 2018;289:809-813
  8. Carney E, Kempf J, DeCarvalho V, Yudd A, Nosher J. Preliminary interpretations of after-hours CT and sonography by radiology residents versus final interpretations by body imaging radiologists at a level 1 trauma center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:367-373
  9. Branstetter BF 4th, Morgan MB, Nesbit CE, Phillips JA, Lionetti DM, Chang PJ, et al. Preliminary reports in the emergency department: is a subspecialist radiologist more accurate than a radiology resident? Acad Radiol 2007;14:201-206
  10. Cooper VF, Goodhartz LA, Nemcek AA Jr, Ryu RK. Radiology resident interpretations of on-call imaging studies: the incidence of major discrepancies. Acad Radiol 2008;15:1198-1204
  11. Kung JW, Melenevsky Y, Hochman MG, Didolkar MM, Yablon CM, Eisenberg RL, et al. On-call musculoskeletal radiographs: discrepancy rates between radiology residents and musculoskeletal radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:856-859
  12. Tomich J, Retrouvey M, Shaves S. Emergency imaging discrepancy rates at a level 1 trauma center: identifying the most common on-call resident "misses". Emerg Radiol 2013;20:499-505
  13. Issa G, Taslakian B, Itani M, Hitti E, Batley N, Saliba M, et al. The discrepancy rate between preliminary and official reports of emergency radiology studies: a performance indicator and quality improvement method. Acta Radiol 2015;56:598-604
  14. Weinberg BD, Richter MD, Champine JG, Morriss MC, Browning T. Radiology resident preliminary reporting in an independent call environment: multiyear assessment of volume, timeliness, and accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 2015;12:95-100
  15. Mellnick V, Raptis C, McWilliams S, Picus D, Wahl R. On-call radiology resident discrepancies: categorization by patient location and severity. J Am Coll Radiol 2016;13:1233-1238
  16. Vaattovaara E, Nikki M, Nevalainen M, Ilmarinen M, Tervonen O. Discrepancies in interpretation of night-time emergency computed tomography scans by radiology residents. Acta Radiol Open 2018;7:2058460118807234
  17. Yang HK, Ko Y, Lee MH, Woo H, Ahn S, Kim B, et al. Initial performance of radiologists and radiology residents in interpreting low-dose (2-mSv) appendiceal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:W594-W611
  18. Chang CC, Wong YC, Wu CH, Chen HW, Wang LJ, Lee YH, et al. Diagnostic performance on low dose computed tomography for acute appendicitis among attending and resident radiologists. Iran J Radiol 2016;13:e33222
  19. Low-dOse CT of Appendicitis Trial (LOCAT). What is LOCAT? LOCAT.com. Web site. https://www.locat.org. Published June 13, 2017. Accessed January 5, 2023
  20. Cho J, Kim Y, Lee S, Min HD, Ko Y, Chee CG, et al. Appendiceal visualization on 2-mSv CT vs. conventional-dose CT in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis: an analysis of large pragmatic randomized trial data. Korean J Radiol 2022;23:413-425
  21. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P; CONSORT Group. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:295-309
  22. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008;337:a2390
  23. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology 2015;277:826-832
  24. Ahn S, LOCAT Group. LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following lowvs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014;15:28
  25. Park SB, Kim MJ, Ko Y, Sim JY, Kim HJ, Lee KH; LOCAT Group. Structured reporting versus free-text reporting for appendiceal computed tomography in adolescents and young adults: preference survey of 594 referring physicians, surgeons, and radiologists from 20 hospitals. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:246-255
  26. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000;215:337-348
  27. Pinto Leite N, Pereira JM, Cunha R, Pinto P, Sirlin C. CT evaluation of appendicitis and its complications: imaging techniques and key diagnostic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:406-417
  28. National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0. National Institutes of Health. com Web site. http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/ electronic_applications/ctc.htm#ctc_40. Published June 14, 2010. Accessed January 5, 2023
  29. Velanovich V, Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg 1992;58:264-269
  30. Mehrotra DV, Chan IS, Berger RL. A cautionary note on exact unconditional inference for a difference between two independent binomial proportions. Biometrics 2003;59:441-450
  31. Lietzen E, Salminen P, Rinta-Kiikka I, Paajanen H, Rautio T, Nordstrom P, et al. The accuracy of the computed tomography diagnosis of acute appendicitis: does the experience of the radiologist matter? Scand J Surg 2018;107:43-47
  32. Ceydeli A, Lavotshkin S, Yu J, Wise L. When should we order a CT scan and when should we rely on the results to diagnose an acute appendicitis? Curr Surg 2006;63:464-468
  33. Poortman P, Lohle PN, Schoemaker CM, Cuesta MA, Oostvogel HJ, de Lange-de Klerk ES, et al. Improving the false-negative rate of CT in acute appendicitis-reassessment of CT images by body imaging radiologists: a blinded prospective study. Eur J Radiol 2010;74:67-70
  34. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG; CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 2012;308:2594-2604
  35. Park SH, Ahn S, Hong N, Park JH, Hwang SS, Lee KH. Quality of reporting noninferiority/similarity in research studies of diagnostic imaging. Radiology 2014;270:241-247
  36. Bhangu A, Soreide K, Di Saverio S, Assarsson JH, Drake FT. Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 2015;386:1278-1287
  37. Sippola S, Gronroos J, Sallinen V, Rautio T, Nordstrom P, Rantanen T, et al. A randomised placebo-controlled doubleblind multicentre trial comparing antibiotic therapy with placebo in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: APPAC III trial study protocol. BMJ Open 2018;8:e023623