Objective To conduct a multireader validation study to evaluate the interobserver variability and the diagnostic accuracy for the lung involvement by COVID-19 of COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) score. Methods This retrospective study included consecutive symptomatic patients who underwent chest CT and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from March 2020 to May 2020 for suspected COVID-19. Twelve readers with different levels of expertise independently scored each CT using the CO-RADS scheme for detecting pulmonary involvement by COVID-19. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were computed to investigate diagnostic yield. Fleiss’ kappa statistics was used to evaluate interreader agreement. Results A total of 572 patients (mean age, 63 ± 20 [standard deviation]; 329 men; 142 patients with COVID-19 and 430 patients without COVID-19) were evaluated. There was a moderate agreement for CO-RADS rating among all readers (Fleiss’ K = 0.43 [95% CI 0.42–0.44]) with a substantial agreement for CO-RADS 1 category (Fleiss’ K = 0.61 [95% CI 0.60–0.62]) and moderate agreement for CO-RADS 5 category (Fleiss’ K = 0.60 [95% CI 0.58–0.61]). ROC analysis showed the CO-RADS score ≥ 4 as the optimal threshold, with a cumulative area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 66–78%), sensitivity 61% (95% CI 52–69%), and specificity 81% (95% CI 77–84%). Conclusion CO-RADS showed high diagnostic accuracy and moderate interrater agreement across readers with different levels of expertise. Specificity is higher than previously thought and that could lead to reconsider the role of CT in this clinical setting. Key Points • COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) demonstrated a good diagnostic accuracy for lung involvement by COVID-19 with an average AUC of 0.72 (95% CI 67 – 75%). • When a threshold of ≥ 4 was used, sensitivity and specificity were 61% (95% CI 52 – 69%) and 81% (95% CI 76 – 84%), respectively. • There was an overall moderate agreement for CO-RADS rating across readers with different levels of expertise (Fleiss’ K = 0.43 [95% CI 0.42 – 0.44]). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00330-020-07273-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Purpose To prospectively compare the performance of James and Boer formula in contrast media (CM) administration, in terms of image quality and parenchymal enhancement in obese patients undergoing CT of the abdomen. Materials and Methods Fifty-five patients with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 35 kg/m2 were prospectively included in the study. All patients underwent 64-row CT examination and were randomly divided in two groups: 26 patients in Group A and 29 patients in Group B. The amount of injected CM was computed according to the patient's lean body weight (LBW), estimated using either Boer formula (Group A) or James formula (Group B). Patient's characteristics, CM volume, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of liver, aorta and portal vein, and liver contrast enhancement index (CEI) were compared between the two groups. For subjective image analysis readers were asked to rate the enhancement of liver, kidneys, and pancreas based on a 5-point Likert scale. Results Liver CNR, aortic CNR, and portal vein CNR showed no significant difference between Group A and Group B (all P ≥ 0.177). Group A provided significantly higher CEI compared to Group B (P = 0.007). Group A and Group B returned comparable overall subjective enhancement values (3.54 and vs 3.20, all P ≥ 0.199). Conclusions Boer formula should be the method of choice for LBW estimation in obese patients, leading to an accurate CM amount calculation and an optimal liver contrast enhancement in CT.
ASIR 70% coupled with reduction of tube current by 50% allowed for significant dose reduction and no detrimental effects on image quality, with minimal patient reclassification in nonobese patients. In obese patients, excessive noise may lead to a clinically significant reclassification rate.
Background Patient body size represents the main determinant of parenchymal enhancement and by adjusting the contrast media (CM) dose to patient weight may be a more appropriate approach to avoid a patient over dosage of CM. To compare the performance of fixed-dose and lean body weight (LBW)-adapted contrast media dosing protocols, in terms of image quality and parenchymal enhancement. Results One-hundred cancer patients undergoing multiphasic abdominal CT were prospectively enrolled in this multicentric study and randomly divided in two groups: patients in fixed-dose group (n = 50) received 120 mL of CM while in LBW group (n = 50) the amount of CM was computed according to the patient’s LBW. LBW protocol group received a significantly lower amount of CM (103.47 ± 17.65 mL vs. 120.00 ± 0.00 mL, p < 0.001). Arterial kidney signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and pancreatic CNR were significantly higher in LBW group (all p ≤ 0.004). LBW group provided significantly higher arterial liver, kidney, and pancreatic contrast enhancement index (CEI) and portal venous phase kidney CEI (all p ≤ 0.002). Significantly lower portal vein SNR and CNR were observed in LBW-Group (all p ≤ 0.020). Conclusions LBW-adapted CM administration for abdominal CT reduces the volume of injected CM and improves both image quality and parenchymal enhancement.
Objective To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of hiatal surface area (HSA) measurement on dedicated multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) acquisition, in patients, previously subjected to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and affected by gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Intraoperative HSA measurement was considered the reference standard. Methods Fifty-two candidates for laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair were prospectively included in the study. MDCT images were acquired during swallowing of oral iodinated contrast media and during strain. Measurements were performed by nine readers divided into three groups according to their experience. Results were compared with intraoperative measurements by means of Spearman correlation coefficient. Reproducibility was evaluated with intra- and interreader agreement by means of weighted Cohen’s kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results Significant differences between MDCT and intraoperative HSA measurements were observed for swallowing imaging for less experienced readers (p = 0.037, 0.025, 0.028 and 0.019). No other statistically significant differences were observed (p > 0.05). The correlation between HSA measured intraoperatively and on MDCT was higher for strain imaging compared to swallowing (r = 0.94—0.92 vs 0.94—0.89). The overall reproducibility of MDCT HSA measurement was excellent (ICC of 0.95; 95% CI 0,8993 to 0,9840) independently of reader’s experience Conclusion HSA can be accurately measured on MDCT images. This method is reproducible and minimally influenced by reader experience. The preoperative measurement of HSA has potential advantages for surgeons in terms of correct approach to hiatal defects in obese patient.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.