Low-Dose Chest CT for the Diagnosis of COVID-19—A Systematic, Prospective Comparison With PCR
Journal
Deutsches Arzteblatt international
ISSN: 1866-0452
Titre abrégé: Dtsch Arztebl Int
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101475967
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2020
01 06 2020
Historique:
received:
21
04
2020
revised:
21
04
2020
accepted:
12
05
2020
entrez:
9
8
2020
pubmed:
9
8
2020
medline:
19
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Only limited evidence has been available to date on the accuracy of systematic low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) use in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with non-specific clinical symptoms. The COVID-19 Imaging Registry Study Aachen (COVID-19-Bildgebungs-Register Aachen, COBRA) collects data on imaging in patients with COVID-19. Two of the COBRA partner hospitals (RWTH Aachen University Hospital and Dueren Hospital) systematically perform reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swabs as well as LDCT in all patients presenting with manifestations that are compatible with COVID-19. In accordance with the COV-RADS protocol, the LDCT scans were prospectively evaluated before the RT-PCR findings were available in order to categorize the likelihood of COVID-19. From 18 March to 5 May 2020, 191 patients with COVID-19 manifestations (117 male, age 65 ± 16 years) underwent RT-PCR testing and LDCT. The mean time from the submission of the sample to the availability of the RT-PCR findings was 491 minutes (interquartile range [IQR: 276-1066]), while that from the performance of the CT to the availability of its findings was 9 minutes (IQR: 6-11). A diagnosis of COVID-19 was made in 75/191 patients (39%). The LDCT was positive in 71 of these 75 patients and negative in 106 of the 116 patients without COVID-19, corresponding to 94.7% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [86.9; 98.5]), 91.4% specificity [84.7; 95.8], positive and negative predictive values of 87.7% [78.5; 93.9] and 96.4% [91.1; 98.6], respectively, and an AUC (area under the curve) of 0.959 [0.930; 0.988]. The initial RT-PCR test results were falsely negative in six patients, yielding a sensitivity of 92.0% [83.4; 97.0]; these six patients had positive LDCT findings. 47.4% of the LDCTs that were negative for COVID-19 (55/116) exhibited pathological pulmonary changes, including infiltrates, that were correctly distinguished from SARS-CoV-2 related changes. In patients with symptoms compatible with COVID-19, LDCT can esablish the diagnosis of COVID-19 with comparable sensitivity to RT-PCR testing. In addition, it offers a high specificity for distinguishing COVID-19 from other diseases associated with the same or similar clinical symptoms. We propose the systematic use of LDCT in addition to RT-PCR testing because it helps correct false-negative RT-PCR results, because its results are available much faster than those of RT-PCRtesting, and because it provides additional diagnostic information useful for treatment planning regardless of the type of the infectious agent.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Only limited evidence has been available to date on the accuracy of systematic low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) use in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with non-specific clinical symptoms.
METHODS
The COVID-19 Imaging Registry Study Aachen (COVID-19-Bildgebungs-Register Aachen, COBRA) collects data on imaging in patients with COVID-19. Two of the COBRA partner hospitals (RWTH Aachen University Hospital and Dueren Hospital) systematically perform reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swabs as well as LDCT in all patients presenting with manifestations that are compatible with COVID-19. In accordance with the COV-RADS protocol, the LDCT scans were prospectively evaluated before the RT-PCR findings were available in order to categorize the likelihood of COVID-19.
RESULTS
From 18 March to 5 May 2020, 191 patients with COVID-19 manifestations (117 male, age 65 ± 16 years) underwent RT-PCR testing and LDCT. The mean time from the submission of the sample to the availability of the RT-PCR findings was 491 minutes (interquartile range [IQR: 276-1066]), while that from the performance of the CT to the availability of its findings was 9 minutes (IQR: 6-11). A diagnosis of COVID-19 was made in 75/191 patients (39%). The LDCT was positive in 71 of these 75 patients and negative in 106 of the 116 patients without COVID-19, corresponding to 94.7% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [86.9; 98.5]), 91.4% specificity [84.7; 95.8], positive and negative predictive values of 87.7% [78.5; 93.9] and 96.4% [91.1; 98.6], respectively, and an AUC (area under the curve) of 0.959 [0.930; 0.988]. The initial RT-PCR test results were falsely negative in six patients, yielding a sensitivity of 92.0% [83.4; 97.0]; these six patients had positive LDCT findings. 47.4% of the LDCTs that were negative for COVID-19 (55/116) exhibited pathological pulmonary changes, including infiltrates, that were correctly distinguished from SARS-CoV-2 related changes.
CONCLUSION
In patients with symptoms compatible with COVID-19, LDCT can esablish the diagnosis of COVID-19 with comparable sensitivity to RT-PCR testing. In addition, it offers a high specificity for distinguishing COVID-19 from other diseases associated with the same or similar clinical symptoms. We propose the systematic use of LDCT in addition to RT-PCR testing because it helps correct false-negative RT-PCR results, because its results are available much faster than those of RT-PCRtesting, and because it provides additional diagnostic information useful for treatment planning regardless of the type of the infectious agent.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32762834
pii: arztebl.2020.0389
doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0389
pmc: PMC7465363
doi:
pii:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
389-395Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 May;35(5):1545-1549
pubmed: 32133578
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):18-39
pubmed: 21697307
Radiographics. 2018 May-Jun;38(3):719-739
pubmed: 29757717
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 19;382(12):1177-1179
pubmed: 32074444
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Oct 15;192(8):974-82
pubmed: 26168322
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E32-E40
pubmed: 32101510
Radiology. 2013 May;267(2):359-67
pubmed: 23297329
JAMA. 2020 May 12;323(18):1843-1844
pubmed: 32159775
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Apr 16;:1-4
pubmed: 32298149
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E41-E45
pubmed: 32049601
Radiology. 2020 Apr;295(1):202-207
pubmed: 32017661
Radiology. 2020 Jul;296(1):172-180
pubmed: 32255413
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 May;214(5):1078-1082
pubmed: 32108495
Radiology. 2019 Jan;290(1):9-22
pubmed: 30457485
Radiology. 2020 Jun;295(3):200463
pubmed: 32077789
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Oct;175(4):1019-24
pubmed: 11000156
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E115-E117
pubmed: 32073353