Cargando…

Comparison of semiquantitative chest CT scoring systems to estimate severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical usefulness among three different semiquantitative computed tomography (CT) severity scoring systems for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. METHODS: Two radiologists independently reviewed chest CT images in 108 patients to rate three CT scoring systems...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Inoue, Akitoshi, Takahashi, Hiroaki, Ibe, Tatsuya, Ishii, Hisashi, Kurata, Yuhei, Ishizuka, Yoshikazu, Hamamoto, Yoichiro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8753957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35020014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08435-2
_version_ 1784632180017725440
author Inoue, Akitoshi
Takahashi, Hiroaki
Ibe, Tatsuya
Ishii, Hisashi
Kurata, Yuhei
Ishizuka, Yoshikazu
Hamamoto, Yoichiro
author_facet Inoue, Akitoshi
Takahashi, Hiroaki
Ibe, Tatsuya
Ishii, Hisashi
Kurata, Yuhei
Ishizuka, Yoshikazu
Hamamoto, Yoichiro
author_sort Inoue, Akitoshi
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical usefulness among three different semiquantitative computed tomography (CT) severity scoring systems for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. METHODS: Two radiologists independently reviewed chest CT images in 108 patients to rate three CT scoring systems (total CT score [TSS], chest CT score [CCTS], and CT severity score [CTSS]). We made a minor modification to CTSS. Quantitative dense area ratio (QDAR: the ratio of lung involvement to lung parenchyma) was calculated using the U-net model. Clinical severity at admission was classified as severe (n = 14) or mild (n = 94). Interobserver agreement, interpretation time, and degree of correlation with clinical severity as well as QDAR were evaluated. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.952–0.970, p < 0.001). Mean interpretation time was significantly longer in CTSS (48.9–80.0 s) than in TSS (25.7–41.7 s, p < 0.001) and CCTS (27.7–39.5 s, p < 0.001). Area under the curve for differentiating clinical severity at admission was 0.855–0.842 in TSS, 0.853–0.850 in CCTS, and 0.853–0.836 in CTSS. All scoring systems correlated with QDAR in the order of CCTS (ρ = 0.443–0.448), TSS (ρ = 0.435–0.437), and CTSS (ρ = 0.415–0.426). CONCLUSIONS: All semiquantitative scoring systems demonstrated substantial diagnostic performance for clinical severity at admission with excellent interobserver agreement. Interpretation time was significantly shorter in TSS and CCTS than in CTSS. The correlation between the scoring system and QDAR was highest in CCTS, followed by TSS and CTSS. CCTS appeared to be the most appropriate CT scoring system for clinical practice. KEY POINTS: • Three semiquantitative scoring systems demonstrate substantial accuracy (area under the curve: 0.836–0.855) for diagnosing clinical severity at admission and (area under the curve: 0.786–0.802) for risk of developing critical illness. • Total CT score (TSS) and chest CT score (CCTS) were considered to be more appropriate in terms of clinical usefulness as compared with CT severity score (CTSS), given the shorter interpretation time in TSS and CCTS, and the lowest correlation with quantitative dense area ratio in CTSS. • CCTS is assumed to distinguish subtle from mild lung involvement better than TSS by adopting a 5% threshold in scoring the degree of severity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8753957
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87539572022-01-12 Comparison of semiquantitative chest CT scoring systems to estimate severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia Inoue, Akitoshi Takahashi, Hiroaki Ibe, Tatsuya Ishii, Hisashi Kurata, Yuhei Ishizuka, Yoshikazu Hamamoto, Yoichiro Eur Radiol Chest OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical usefulness among three different semiquantitative computed tomography (CT) severity scoring systems for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. METHODS: Two radiologists independently reviewed chest CT images in 108 patients to rate three CT scoring systems (total CT score [TSS], chest CT score [CCTS], and CT severity score [CTSS]). We made a minor modification to CTSS. Quantitative dense area ratio (QDAR: the ratio of lung involvement to lung parenchyma) was calculated using the U-net model. Clinical severity at admission was classified as severe (n = 14) or mild (n = 94). Interobserver agreement, interpretation time, and degree of correlation with clinical severity as well as QDAR were evaluated. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.952–0.970, p < 0.001). Mean interpretation time was significantly longer in CTSS (48.9–80.0 s) than in TSS (25.7–41.7 s, p < 0.001) and CCTS (27.7–39.5 s, p < 0.001). Area under the curve for differentiating clinical severity at admission was 0.855–0.842 in TSS, 0.853–0.850 in CCTS, and 0.853–0.836 in CTSS. All scoring systems correlated with QDAR in the order of CCTS (ρ = 0.443–0.448), TSS (ρ = 0.435–0.437), and CTSS (ρ = 0.415–0.426). CONCLUSIONS: All semiquantitative scoring systems demonstrated substantial diagnostic performance for clinical severity at admission with excellent interobserver agreement. Interpretation time was significantly shorter in TSS and CCTS than in CTSS. The correlation between the scoring system and QDAR was highest in CCTS, followed by TSS and CTSS. CCTS appeared to be the most appropriate CT scoring system for clinical practice. KEY POINTS: • Three semiquantitative scoring systems demonstrate substantial accuracy (area under the curve: 0.836–0.855) for diagnosing clinical severity at admission and (area under the curve: 0.786–0.802) for risk of developing critical illness. • Total CT score (TSS) and chest CT score (CCTS) were considered to be more appropriate in terms of clinical usefulness as compared with CT severity score (CTSS), given the shorter interpretation time in TSS and CCTS, and the lowest correlation with quantitative dense area ratio in CTSS. • CCTS is assumed to distinguish subtle from mild lung involvement better than TSS by adopting a 5% threshold in scoring the degree of severity. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-01-12 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8753957/ /pubmed/35020014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08435-2 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2022 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Chest
Inoue, Akitoshi
Takahashi, Hiroaki
Ibe, Tatsuya
Ishii, Hisashi
Kurata, Yuhei
Ishizuka, Yoshikazu
Hamamoto, Yoichiro
Comparison of semiquantitative chest CT scoring systems to estimate severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia
title Comparison of semiquantitative chest CT scoring systems to estimate severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia
title_full Comparison of semiquantitative chest CT scoring systems to estimate severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia
title_fullStr Comparison of semiquantitative chest CT scoring systems to estimate severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of semiquantitative chest CT scoring systems to estimate severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia
title_short Comparison of semiquantitative chest CT scoring systems to estimate severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia
title_sort comparison of semiquantitative chest ct scoring systems to estimate severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) pneumonia
topic Chest
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8753957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35020014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08435-2
work_keys_str_mv AT inoueakitoshi comparisonofsemiquantitativechestctscoringsystemstoestimateseverityincoronavirusdisease2019covid19pneumonia
AT takahashihiroaki comparisonofsemiquantitativechestctscoringsystemstoestimateseverityincoronavirusdisease2019covid19pneumonia
AT ibetatsuya comparisonofsemiquantitativechestctscoringsystemstoestimateseverityincoronavirusdisease2019covid19pneumonia
AT ishiihisashi comparisonofsemiquantitativechestctscoringsystemstoestimateseverityincoronavirusdisease2019covid19pneumonia
AT kuratayuhei comparisonofsemiquantitativechestctscoringsystemstoestimateseverityincoronavirusdisease2019covid19pneumonia
AT ishizukayoshikazu comparisonofsemiquantitativechestctscoringsystemstoestimateseverityincoronavirusdisease2019covid19pneumonia
AT hamamotoyoichiro comparisonofsemiquantitativechestctscoringsystemstoestimateseverityincoronavirusdisease2019covid19pneumonia