Seo Hyobin, Lee Kyoung Ho, Kim Hyuk Jung, Kim Kyuseok, Kang Sung-Bum, Kim So Yeon, Kim Young Hoon
Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Korea.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jul;193(1):96-105. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.1237.
The purpose of this study was to compare low-dose unenhanced CT with standard-dose i.v. contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of appendicitis.
Two hundred seven adults with suspected appendicitis underwent CT with mean effective doses of both 4.2 and 8.0 mSv. Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed thin-section images by sliding a 5-mm-thick ray-sum slab. They rated the likelihood of appendicitis and appendiceal visualization on 5- and 3-point scales, respectively, and proposed alternative diagnoses. Likelihood > or = 3 was considered a positive diagnosis. Receiver operating characteristics analysis, the McNemar test, and the Wilcoxon's signed-rank test were used.
Seventy-eight patients had appendicitis. The values of the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve were 0.98 for the low-dose unenhanced acquisition and 0.97 for the standard-dose contrast-enhanced acquisition for reader 1 (95% CI for the difference, -0.02 to 0.03) and 0.99 and 0.98 (-0.02 to 0.02) for reader 2. Sensitivity was 98.7% for low-dose unenhanced CT and 100% for standard-dose contrast-enhanced CT for reader 1 (p = 1.00) and 100% for both techniques for reader 2. Specificity was 95.3% and 93.0% (p = 0.25) and 96.9% and 96.9%. The interpretation was indeterminate (score 3) in 0.5% and 1.4% of cases for reader 1 (p = 0.63) and 0.5% and 0% for reader 2 (p = 1.00). A normal appendix was not visualized in 5.4% and 3.9% of cases by reader 1 (p = 0.63) and 3.9% and 2.3% of cases by reader 2 (p = 0.50). None of the patients whose appendix was not visualized had appendicitis. Diagnostic confidence, visualization score for a normal appendix, and correct alternative diagnosis tended to be compromised with use of low-dose unenhanced CT, showing a significant difference for a reader's confidence in the diagnosis of appendicitis (p = 0.004). The two techniques were comparable in the diagnosis of appendiceal perforation.
Low-dose unenhanced CT is potentially useful in the diagnosis of appendicitis.
本研究旨在比较低剂量非增强CT与标准剂量静脉注射对比增强CT在阑尾炎诊断中的效果。
207例疑似阑尾炎的成年人接受了CT检查,平均有效剂量分别为4.2和8.0 mSv。两位放射科医生通过滑动5毫米厚的射线总和平板回顾性地分析薄层图像。他们分别采用5分制和3分制对阑尾炎的可能性和阑尾显影情况进行评分,并提出其他诊断。可能性≥3分被视为阳性诊断。采用受试者操作特征分析、McNemar检验和Wilcoxon符号秩检验。
78例患者患有阑尾炎。对于读者1,低剂量非增强扫描的受试者操作特征曲线下面积值为0.98,标准剂量对比增强扫描为0.97(差异的95%CI为-0.02至0.03);对于读者2,分别为0.99和0.98(-0.02至0.02)。对于读者1,低剂量非增强CT的敏感性为98.7%,标准剂量对比增强CT为100%(p = 1.00);对于读者2,两种技术的敏感性均为100%。特异性分别为95.3%和93.0%(p = 0.25)以及96.9%和96.9%。读者1的病例中,0.5%和1.4%的解读结果不确定(评分为3分)(p = 0.63);读者2的病例中,分别为0.5%和0%(p = 1.00)。读者1的病例中,5.4%和3.9%的患者阑尾未显影(p = 0.63);读者2的病例中,分别为3.9%和2.3%(p = 0.50)。阑尾未显影的患者均无阑尾炎。使用低剂量非增强CT时,诊断信心、正常阑尾的显影评分以及正确的其他诊断往往会受到影响,读者对阑尾炎诊断的信心存在显著差异(p = 0.004)。两种技术在阑尾穿孔的诊断中具有可比性。
低剂量非增强CT在阑尾炎诊断中可能具有应用价值。