RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Some patients undergo both computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) sequentially as part of the same evaluation for acute cholecystitis (AC). Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the diagnostic performance of US and CT in the diagnosis of AC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases were searched for relevant published studies through November 2023. The primary objective was to compare the head-to-head performance of US and CT using surgical intervention or clinical follow-up as the reference standard. For the secondary analysis, all individual US and CT studies were analyzed. The pooled sensitivities, specificities, and areas under the curve (AUCs) were determined along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The prevalence of imaging findings was also evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. In the primary analysis of head-to-head studies (n = 5), CT had a pooled sensitivity of 83.9% (95% CI, 78.4-88.2%) versus 79.0% (95% CI, 68.8-86.6%) of US (p = 0.44). The pooled specificity of CT was 94% (95% CI, 82.0-98.0%) versus 93.6% (95% CI, 79.4-98.2%) of US (p = 0.85). The concordance of positive or negative test between both modalities was 82.3% (95% CI, 72.1-89.4%). US and CT led to a positive change in management in only 4 to 8% of cases, respectively, when ordered sequentially after the other test. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of CT is comparable to US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, with a high rate of concordance between the two modalities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A subsequent US after a positive or negative CT for suspected acute cholecystitis may be unnecessary in most cases. KEY POINTS: When there is clinical suspicion of acute cholecystitis, patients will often undergo both CT and US. CT has similar sensitivity and specificity compared to US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. The concordance rate between CT and US for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis is 82.3%.

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To evaluate the appropriateness and outcomes of ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR) orders in the ED. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive US, CT, and MR orders for adult ED patients at a tertiary care urban academic center from January to March 2019. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACRAC) guidelines were primarily used to classify imaging orders as "appropriate" or "inappropriate". Two radiologists in consensus judged specific clinical scenarios that were unavailable in the ACRAC. Final imaging reports were compared with the initial clinical suspicion for imaging and categorized into "normal", "compatible with initial diagnosis", "alternative diagnosis", or "inconclusive". The sample was powered to show a prevalence of inappropriate orders of 30% with a margin of error of 5%. RESULTS: The rate of inappropriate orders was 59.4% for US, 29.1% for CT, and 33.3% for MR. The most commonly imaged systems for each modality were neuro (130/330) and gastrointestinal (95/330) for CT, genitourinary (132/330) and gastrointestinal (121/330) for US, neuro (273/330) and gastrointestinal (37/330) for MR. Compared to inappropriately ordered tests, the final reports of appropriate orders were nearly three times more likely to demonstrate findings compatible with the initial diagnosis for all modalities: US (45.5 vs. 14.3%, p < 0.001), CT (46.6 vs. 14.6%, p < 0.001), and MR (56.3 vs. 21.8%, p < 0.001). Inappropriate orders were more likely to show no abnormalities compared to appropriate orders: US (65.8 vs. 38.8%, p < 0.001), CT (62.5 vs. 34.2%, p < 0.001), and MR (61.8 vs. 38.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of inappropriate imaging orders in the ED was 59.4% for US, 29.1% for CT, and 33.3% for MR. Appropriately ordered imaging was three times more likely to yield findings compatible with the initial diagnosis across all modalities.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of dual-time-point fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission computed tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) compared to conventional early imaging for detecting colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. METHODS: One hundred twenty-four consecutive CRC patients underwent dual-time-point imaging scans on a retrospective basis. Histopathological confirmation and/or clinical follow-up were accepted as the gold standard. Standard uptake values (SUV), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), retention index (RI), tumor-to-normal liver ratio (TNR), and lesion sizes were measured for early and delayed PET scans. The diagnostic performance of early and delayed images was calculated on a per-patient basis and compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS: Among the 124 patients, 57 (46%) had CRLM, 6 (4.8%) had benign lesions, and 61 (49.2%) had no concerning lesions detected. Smaller CRLM lesions (<5 cm3) showed significantly higher uptake in the delayed scans relative to early imaging (p < 0.001). The SUV and TNR increased significantly in delayed imaging of all metastatic lesions (p < 0.001). The retention index of all CRLM was high (40.8%), especially for small lesions (54.8%). A total of 177 lesions in delayed images and 124 in standard early images were identified. In a per-patient analysis, delayed imaging had significantly higher sensitivity (100% vs. 87.7%) and specificity (91.0% vs. 94.0%) compared to early imaging (p-value = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The detection of liver lesions using dual-time-point PET/CT scan improves the sensitivity and specificity for the detection of colorectal liver metastasis.

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To perform a meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of learning (ML) algorithms (conventional and deep learning algorithms) for the classification of malignant versus benign focal liver lesions (FLLs) on US and CEUS. METHODS: Available databases were searched for relevant published studies through September 2022. Studies met eligibility criteria if they evaluate the diagnostic performance of ML for the classification of malignant and benign focal liver lesions on US and CEUS. The pooled per-lesion sensitivities and specificities for each modality with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies on US, 11 on CEUS, and 1 study evaluating both methods met the inclusion criteria with a total of 34,245 FLLs evaluated. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ML for the malignancy classification of FLLs were 81.7% (95% CI, 77.2-85.4%) and 84.8% (95% CI, 76.0-90.8%) for US, compared to 87.1% (95% CI, 81.8-91.0%) and 87.0% (95% CI, 83.1-90.1%) for CEUS. In the subgroup analysis of studies that evaluated deep learning algorithms, the sensitivity and specificity of CEUS (n = 4) increased to 92.4% (95% CI, 88.5-95.0%) and 88.2% (95% CI, 81.1-92.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic performance of ML algorithms for the malignant classification of FLLs was high for both US and CEUS with overall similar sensitivity and specificity. The similar performance of US may be related to the higher prevalence of DL models in that group.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) examinations ordered in the emergency department (ED) for abdominal complaints. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 154 CTs and 154 US orders for appropriateness using evidence-based recommendations by the American College of Radiology. The sample was powered to show a prevalence of inappropriate orders of 25% with a margin of error of 7.5%. Findings in the final reports were compared to the initial clinical diagnosis classified in 4 categories: normal, compatible with initial diagnosis, alternative diagnosis, and inconclusive. We also evaluated the frequency in which a second imaging modality was ordered on the same visit. RESULTS: A total of 135 CT and 143 US examinations had complete clinical information to allow evaluation of order appropriateness. The rate of inappropriate orders was 36.3% for CT and 84.4% for US. The final report of appropriate orders was significantly more likely to demonstrate findings compatible with the initial diagnosis for both CT (76.7% vs 20.4%, P < 0.0001) and US (38.9% vs 14.4%, P = 0.0093). Inappropriately ordered CT scans were more likely to show no abnormalities (46.9 vs 16.3%, P = 0.0001). An additional imaging order with a secondary modality was requested in 20% of the inappropriate US orders, and 8.2% of the inappropriate CT orders. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of inappropriate examinations in the ED was 36.3% for CT and 84.4% for US. Appropriately ordered exams were more likely to yield imaging findings compatible with the initial diagnosis for both modalities.

Assuntos

Assuntos