The reliability of low-dose chest CT for the initial imaging of COVID-19: comparison of structured findings, categorical diagnoses and dose levels.


Journal

Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)
ISSN: 1305-3612
Titre abrégé: Diagn Interv Radiol
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 101241152

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Historique:
pubmed: 29 7 2021
medline: 29 9 2021
entrez: 28 7 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The widespread use of computed tomography (CT) in COVID-19 may cause adverse biological effects. Many recommend to minimize radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic quality. This study was designed to evaluate the difference between findings of COVID-19 pneumonia on standard and low-dose protocols to provide data on the utility of the latter during initial imaging of COVID-19. Patients suspected of having COVID-19 were scanned with a 128-slices scanner using two consecutive protocols in the same session (standard-dose scan: 120 kV and 300 mA; low-dose scan: 80 kV and 40 mA). Dose data acquisition and analysis was performed using an automated software. High and low-dose examinations were anonymized, shuffled and read by two radiologist with consensus according to a highly structured reporting format that was primarily based on the consensus statement of the RSNA. Accordingly, 8 typical, 2 indeterminate, and 7 atypical findings were investigated. Cases were then assigned to one of the categories: (i) Cov19Typ, typical COVID-19; (ii) Cov19Ind, indeterminate COVID-19; (iii) Cov19Aty, atypical COVID-19; (iv) Cov19Neg, not COVID-19. McNemar test was used to analyze the number of disagreements between standard and low-dose scans regarding paired proportions of structured findings. Inter- test reliability was tested using kappa coefficient. The study included 740 patients with a mean age of 44.05±16.59 years. The median (minimum-maximum) dose level for standard protocol was 189.98 mGy•cm (98.20-493.54 mGy•cm) and for low-dose protocol was 15.59 mGy•cm (11.59-32.37 mGy•cm) differing by -80 and -254 mGy•cm from pan-European diagnostic reference levels. Only two findings for typical, one finding for indeterminate, and three findings for atypical categories were statistically similar (p > 0.05). The difference in other categories resulted in significantly different final diagnosis for COVID-19 (p < 0.001). Overall, 626 patients received matching diagnoses with the two protocols. According to intertest reliability analysis, kappa value was found to be 0.669 (p < 0.001) to indicate substantial match. CT with standard-dose had a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 72%, while CT with low-dose had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 81%. Low kV and mA scans, as used in this study according to scanner manufacturer's global recommendations, may significantly lower exposure levels. However, these scans are significantly inferior in the detection of several individual CT findings of COVID-19 pneumonia, particularly the ones with GGO. Therefore, they should not be used as the protocol of choice in the initial imaging of COVID-19 patients during which higher sensitivity is required.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34318757
doi: 10.5152/dir.2021.20802
pmc: PMC8480955
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

607-614

Références

Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):514-523
pubmed: 31986261
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2021 Mar;27(2):181-187
pubmed: 32876571
Radiology. 2020 Jul;296(1):172-180
pubmed: 32255413
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2019 Nov;25(6):442-450
pubmed: 31650970
J Clin Oncol. 2005 May 10;23(14):3279-87
pubmed: 15886315
J Thorac Imaging. 2020 Jul;35(4):219-227
pubmed: 32324653
Radiology. 2011 Jan;258(1):243-53
pubmed: 21045183
Eur Radiol. 2020 Aug;30(8):4381-4389
pubmed: 32193638
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2020 Apr 21;2(2):e200196
pubmed: 33778576
BMJ. 1992 Jun 6;304(6840):1491-4
pubmed: 1611375
BMC Med Imaging. 2020 May 24;20(1):56
pubmed: 32448136
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):262-267
pubmed: 32422057
J Thorac Imaging. 2011 May;26(2):106-18
pubmed: 21508733
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E32-E40
pubmed: 32101510
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E115-E117
pubmed: 32073353
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):970-971
pubmed: 32003551
Radiology. 2009 Nov;253(2):520-31
pubmed: 19789227
Eur J Radiol Open. 2016 Apr 27;3:86-94
pubmed: 27957519
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2020 Jun 11;2(3):e200213
pubmed: 33778589
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2020 Jul;26(4):301-307
pubmed: 32436847
Clin Radiol. 2013 Sep;68(9):902-8
pubmed: 23706621
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Jul 16;159(2):156-7
pubmed: 23856689
Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging. 2020 Feb 14;2(1):e200037
pubmed: 33779634
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Mar;82(3):e142-50
pubmed: 23122673

Auteurs

Hakkı Muammer Karakaş (HM)

Department of Radiology, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Gülşah Yıldırım (G)

Department of Radiology, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Esin Derin Çiçek (ED)

Department of Radiology, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH