Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print August 9, 2007, 10.1148/radiol.2443051785
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2443051785v1
244/3/838    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Branson, H. M.
Right arrow Articles by Shroff, M. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Branson, H. M.
Right arrow Articles by Shroff, M. M.
(Radiology 2007;244:838-844.)
© RSNA, 2007

Pediatric Imaging

The Brain in Children: Is Contrast Enhancement Really Needed after Obtaining Normal Unenhanced CT Results?1

Helen M. Branson, BSc, MBBS, FRACR, Andrea S. Doria, MD, MSc, PhD, Rahim Moineddin, PhD, and Manohar M. Shroff, MD

1 From the Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X8 (H.M.B., A.S.D., M.M.S.); and Department of Public Health, Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada (R.M.). Received November 8, 2005; revision requested January 4, 2006; revision received March 24; accepted April 20; final version accepted January 8, 2007. Supported in part by a research award from the Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto. Address correspondence to M.M.S. (e-mail: manohar.shroff{at}sickkids.ca).

Purpose: To retrospectively determine and compare the sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced and contrast material–enhanced computed tomography (CT) (reference standard) in the diagnosis of brain abnormalities and to evaluate any change in diagnosis that resulted from the contrast-enhanced study.

Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the local research ethics board; the requirement for informed consent was waived. The authors reviewed the unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT scans of the brain obtained in 353 children for indications other than trauma. There were 196 boys and 157 girls aged 0 months to 17.8 years. Scans were read independently by two pediatric neuroradiologists who were blinded to clinical information. The diagnosis for each scan was recorded according to the anatomic section (supratentorial, infratentorial, ventricles, and skull). The final diagnosis was classified as normal, abnormal, or equivocal. {kappa} Statistics, with 95% confidence intervals, were reported, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated.

Results: Interreader agreement for different anatomic regions varied between good ({kappa} coefficient, 0.63) and very good ({kappa} coefficient, 0.88) for unenhanced and contrast-enhanced scans. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for unenhanced scans were 97%, 89%, 87%, and 97%, respectively. The use of contrast material led to a change in the original normal or equivocal diagnosis to an abnormal diagnosis for only five (2.7%) of the 183 normal unenhanced scans.

Conclusion: Unenhanced CT of developing brains has high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of pathologic findings. The use of intravenous contrast material after unenhanced CT of the brain in children did not change the diagnosis frequently.

© RSNA, 2007