Comparison of the CO-RADS and the RSNA chest CT classification system concerning sensitivity and reliability for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia.
COVID-19
Pneumonia
Reproducibility of results
Retrospective studies
Tomography (X-ray computed)
Journal
Insights into imaging
ISSN: 1869-4101
Titre abrégé: Insights Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101532453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Apr 2021
28 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
28
01
2021
accepted:
09
04
2021
entrez:
29
4
2021
pubmed:
30
4
2021
medline:
30
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) recently published a chest CT classification system and Dutch Association for Radiology has announced Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reporting and data system (CO-RADS) to provide guidelines to radiologists who interpret chest CT images of patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. This study aimed to compare CO-RADS and RSNA classification with respect to their sensitivity and reliability for diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. A retrospective study assessed consecutive CT chest imaging of 359 COVID-19-positive patients. Three experienced radiologists who were aware of the final diagnosis of all patients, independently categorized each patient according to CO-RADS and RSNA classification. RT-PCR test performed within one week of chest CT scan was used as a reference standard for calculating sensitivity of each system. Kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficient were used to assess reliability of each system. The study group included 359 patients (180 men, 179 women; mean age, 45 ± 16.9 years). Considering combination of CO-RADS 3, 4 and 5 and combination of typical and indeterminate RSNA categories as positive predictors for COVID-19 diagnosis, the overall sensitivity was the same for both classification systems (72.7%). Applying both systems in moderate and severe/critically ill patients resulted in a significant increase in sensitivity (94.7% and 97.8%, respectively). The overall inter-reviewer agreement was excellent for CO-RADS (κ = 0.801), and good for RSNA classification (κ = 0.781). CO-RADS and RSNA chest CT classification systems are comparable in diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia with similar sensitivity and reliability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) recently published a chest CT classification system and Dutch Association for Radiology has announced Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reporting and data system (CO-RADS) to provide guidelines to radiologists who interpret chest CT images of patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. This study aimed to compare CO-RADS and RSNA classification with respect to their sensitivity and reliability for diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A retrospective study assessed consecutive CT chest imaging of 359 COVID-19-positive patients. Three experienced radiologists who were aware of the final diagnosis of all patients, independently categorized each patient according to CO-RADS and RSNA classification. RT-PCR test performed within one week of chest CT scan was used as a reference standard for calculating sensitivity of each system. Kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficient were used to assess reliability of each system. The study group included 359 patients (180 men, 179 women; mean age, 45 ± 16.9 years). Considering combination of CO-RADS 3, 4 and 5 and combination of typical and indeterminate RSNA categories as positive predictors for COVID-19 diagnosis, the overall sensitivity was the same for both classification systems (72.7%). Applying both systems in moderate and severe/critically ill patients resulted in a significant increase in sensitivity (94.7% and 97.8%, respectively). The overall inter-reviewer agreement was excellent for CO-RADS (κ = 0.801), and good for RSNA classification (κ = 0.781).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
CO-RADS and RSNA chest CT classification systems are comparable in diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia with similar sensitivity and reliability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33913066
doi: 10.1186/s13244-021-00998-4
pii: 10.1186/s13244-021-00998-4
pmc: PMC8081002
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
55Références
Eur Radiol. 2020 Nov;30(11):6194-6203
pubmed: 32524223
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Aug 19;10(9):
pubmed: 32825060
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E46-E54
pubmed: 32155105
Eur Radiol. 2021 Apr;31(4):1932-1940
pubmed: 32968883
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Jun;214(6):1280-1286
pubmed: 32130038
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2021 Jan 14;3(1):e200510
pubmed: 33778660
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E97-E104
pubmed: 32339082
Eur Radiol. 2020 Sep;30(9):4930-4942
pubmed: 32346790
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2021 Feb;72(1):159-166
pubmed: 32615802
Eur J Radiol. 2020 May;126:108961
pubmed: 32229322
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2020 Nov 5;2(6):e200492
pubmed: 33778648
Radiology. 2021 Jan;298(1):E30-E37
pubmed: 32776832
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E113-E114
pubmed: 32105562
Radiology. 2020 Apr;295(1):202-207
pubmed: 32017661
Radiology. 2020 Jul;296(1):172-180
pubmed: 32255413
Curr Med Sci. 2020 Apr;40(2):275-280
pubmed: 32207032
Eur Radiol. 2020 Sep;30(9):5214-5216
pubmed: 32377812
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733
pubmed: 31978945
Radiology. 2021 Jan;298(1):E18-E28
pubmed: 32729810
Eur Radiol. 2020 Oct;30(10):5720-5727
pubmed: 32415585
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2020 Mar 25;2(2):e200152
pubmed: 33778571
Eur Radiol. 2020 Aug;30(8):4398-4406
pubmed: 32211963
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):425-434
pubmed: 32105637
Radiology. 2020 Jun;295(3):200463
pubmed: 32077789
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2020 Mar 30;2(2):e200047
pubmed: 33778560
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E32-E40
pubmed: 32101510
Radiology. 2020 Jun;295(3):715-721
pubmed: 32053470
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E41-E45
pubmed: 32049601
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2020 Jul 23;2(4):e200312
pubmed: 33778611