Low-Dose (2-mSv) CT in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis: Advantages of additional review of thin sections using multiplanar sliding-slab averaging technique

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 205, Issue 5, 2015, Pages W485-W491

  Lee, Yoon Jin ^a   Kim, Bohyoung ^a   Ko, Yousun ^a   Cho, Kyung Eun ^b   Hong, Seong Sook ^a   Kim, Dong Hwan ^c   Song, Hyunjoo ^d   Lee, Kyoung Ho ^a  

^a Seoul National University Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

^b Soonchunhyang University   (South Korea)

^c Bundang Jesaeng Hospital   (South Korea)

^d Department of Computer Science and Engineering   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Abdomen; Appendicitis; CT; Low dose CT; Sliding slab averaging

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APPENDICITIS; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLANAR SLIDING SLAB AVERAGING TECHNIQUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; YOUNG ADULT; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY;

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APPENDICITIS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84944895768     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.13994     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Kim B, Lee KH, Kim KJ, Mantiuk R, Kim HR, Kim YH. Artifacts in slab average-intensity-projection images reformatted from JPEG 2000 compressed thin-section abdominal CT data sets. AJR 2008; 190:[web]W342-W350.
2. Lee KH, Hong H, Hahn S, Kim B, Kim KJ, Kim YH. Summation or axial slab average intensity projection of abdominal thin-section CT datasets: can they substitute for the primary reconstruction from raw projection data? J Digit Imaging 2008; 21:422-432.
3. von Falck C, Galanski M, Shin HO. Informatics in radiology: sliding-thin-slab averaging for improved depiction of low-contrast lesions with radiation dose savings at thin-section CT. RadioGraphics 2010; 30:317-326.
4. Lee KH, Kim YH, Hahn S, et al. Computed tomography diagnosis of acute appendicitis: Advantages of reviewing thin-section datasets using sliding slab average intensity projection technique. Invest Radiol 2006; 41:579-585.
5. Joo SM, Lee KH, Kim YH, et al. Detection of the normal appendix with low-dose unenhanced CT: use of the sliding slab averaging technique. Radiology 2009; 251:780-787.
6. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendici-tis. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1596-1605.
7. Kim SY, Lee KH, Kim K, et al. Acute appendicitis in young adults: low- versus standard-radiation- dose contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for diagnosis. Radiology 2011; 260:437-445.
8. Seo H, Lee KH, Kim HJ, et al. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis with sliding slab ray-sum interpretation of low-dose unenhanced CT and standarddose intravenous contrast-enhanced CT scans. AJR 2009; 193:96-105.
9. Paulson EK, Kalady MF, Pappas TN. Clinical practice: suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:236-242.
10. Huda W, Mettler FA. Volume CT dose index and dose-length product displayed during CT: what good are they? Radiology 2011; 258:236-242.
11. Lee KH, Lee HJ, Kim JH, et al. Managing the CT data explosion: initial experiences of archiving volumetric datasets in a mini-PACS. J Digit Imaging 2005; 18:188-195.
12. Lee H, Kim B, Kim KJ, et al. Introduction of heat map to fidelity assessment of compressed CT images. Med Phys 2011; 38:4667-4671.
13. Seong NJ, Kim B, Lee S, et al. Off-site smartphone reading of CT images for patients with inconclusive diagnoses of appendicitis from on-call radiologists. AJR 2014; 203:3-9.
14. Krippendorff K. Computing Krippendorff's alpha- reliability. Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania website. www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/krippendorff/mwebreliability5.pdf Published January 25, 2011. Updated September 13, 2013. Accessed May 10, 2014.
15. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992; 27:723-731.
16. Ahn S; LOCAT Group. LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standarddose 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.
17. Daly CP, Cohan RH, Francis IR, Caoili EM, Ellis JH, Nan B. Incidence of acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings. AJR 2005; 184:1813-1820.
18. Newcombe RG. Improved confidence intervals for the difference between binomial proportions based on paired data. Stat Med 1998; 17:2635-2650.
19. Paulson EK, Harris JP, Jaffe TA, Haugan PA, Nelson RC. Acute appendicitis: Added diagnostic value of coronal reformations from isotropic voxels at multidetector row CT. Radiology 2005; 235:879-885.
20. Park JH; LOCAT Group. Diagnostic imaging utilization in cases of acute appendicitis: multi-center experience. J Korean Med Sci 2014; 29:1308-1316.
21. Yang HK, Ko Y, Lee MH, et al. Initial performance of radiologists and radiology residents in interpreting low-dose (2-mSv) appendiceal CT. AJR (in press).