Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Study protocol

LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Author: Soyeon Ahn

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Computed tomography is widely used to diagnose acute appendicitis. Many adolescents and young adults are exposed to the associated radiation. A recent single-institution trial has reported promising results for low-dose computed tomography; however, this technique has not yet been widely adopted. LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial), a multi-institution randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, aims to compare low-dose computed tomography and standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging tests for adolescents and young adults, and therefore to test the generalizability of the previous single-institution trial results.

Methods/Design

Participants with suspected appendicitis are randomly assigned to either the low-dose group (with a typical effective dose of 2 mSv) or the standard-dose group (as used in normal practice at each participating site, typically 8 mSv). The primary end point is the negative appendectomy rate (the percentage of the number of uninflamed appendices that were removed among all non-incidental appendectomies), which is a consequence of false-positive diagnoses, with a non-inferiority margin of 4.5 percentage points. The key secondary end point is the appendiceal perforation rate, which is a consequence of delayed (or false-negative) diagnoses. Participant recruitment will be continued until the number of non-incidental appendectomies for each group exceeds 444. The total number of expected participants approximates 3,000, including those not undergoing appendectomy.

Discussion

In addition to the study protocol, we elaborate on several challenging or potentially debatable components of the study design, including the broad eligibility criteria, choice of the primary end point, potential effect of using advanced imaging techniques on study results, determining and adjusting the radiation doses, ambiguities in reference standards, rationale for the non-inferiority margin, use of the intention-to-treat approach and difficulties in defining adverse events.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01925014
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV: The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 1990, 132: 910-925.PubMed
2.
Terasawa T, Blackmore CC, Bent S, Kohlwes RJ: Systematic review: computed tomography and ultrasonography to detect acute appendicitis in adults and adolescents. Ann Intern Med. 2004, 141: 537-546. 10.7326/0003-4819-141-7-200410050-00011.CrossRefPubMed
3.
van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Ubbink DT, Stoker J, Boermeester MA: Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology. 2008, 249: 97-106. 10.1148/radiol.2483071652.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Drake FT, Florence MG, Johnson MG, Jurkovich GJ, Kwon S, Schmidt Z, Thirlby RC, Flum DR, Collaborative S: Progress in the diagnosis of appendicitis: a report from Washington State’s Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Ann Surg. 2012, 256: 586-594. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826a9602.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD, Zane RD, Schiff GD, Hanson R, Baeyens PF, Khorasani R: Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology. 2010, 256: 460-465. 10.1148/radiol.10091570.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Coursey CA, Nelson RC, Patel MB, Cochran C, Dodd LG, Delong DM, Beam CA, Vaslef S: Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: do more preoperative CT scans mean fewer negative appendectomies? A 10-year study. Radiology. 2010, 254: 460-468. 10.1148/radiol.09082298.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Paulson EK, Kalady MF, Pappas TN: Clinical practice. Suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 2003, 348: 236-242. 10.1056/NEJMcp013351.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP: Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA. 2001, 286: 1748-1753. 10.1001/jama.286.14.1748.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Raman SS, Osuagwu FC, Kadell B, Cryer H, Sayre J, Lu DS: Effect of CT on false positive diagnosis of appendicitis and perforation. N Engl J Med. 2008, 358: 972-973. 10.1056/NEJMc0707000.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Rao PM, Rhea JT, Rattner DW, Venus LG, Novelline RA: Introduction of appendiceal CT: impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates. Ann Surg. 1999, 229: 344-349. 10.1097/00000658-199903000-00007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Cuschieri J, Florence M, Flum DR, Jurkovich GJ, Lin P, Steele SR, Symons RG, Thirlby R: Negative appendectomy and imaging accuracy in the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Ann Surg. 2008, 248: 557-563.PubMed
12.
Rhea JT, Halpern EF, Ptak T, Lawrason JN, Sacknoff R, Novelline RA: The status of appendiceal CT in an urban medical center 5 years after its introduction: experience with 753 patients. Am J Roentgenol. 2005, 184: 1802-1808. 10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841802.CrossRef
13.
Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Mostafavi AA, McCabe CJ: Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med. 1998, 338: 141-146. 10.1056/NEJM199801153380301.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Budhraja V: Radiation exposure from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med. 2009, 361: 2290-2291. Author’s reply 2291–2292PubMed
16.
Karnath BM, Luh JY: Suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 2003, 349: 305-306. Author’s reply 305–306CrossRefPubMed
17.
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, Howe NL, Ronckers CM, Rajaraman P, Craft AW, Parker L, Berrington de Gonzalez A: Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2012, 380: 499-505. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60815-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, Mahesh M, Gould R, Berrington De Gonzalez A, Miglioretti DL: Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009, 169: 2078-2086. 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ: Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007, 357: 2277-2284. 10.1056/NEJMra072149.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Berrington De Gonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, Land C: Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009, 169: 2071-2077. 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.440.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Tsapaki V, Rehani M, Saini S: Radiation safety in abdominal computed tomography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2010, 31: 29-38. 10.1053/j.sult.2009.09.004.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Johnson PT, Horton KM, Mahesh M, Fishman EK: Multidetector computed tomography for suspected appendicitis: multi-institutional survey of 16-MDCT data acquisition protocols and review of pertinent literature. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006, 30: 758-764. 10.1097/01.rct.0000228156.65904.b4.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Keyzer C, Tack D, de Maertelaer V, Bohy P, Gevenois PA, Van Gansbeke D: Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2004, 232: 164-172. 10.1148/radiol.2321031115.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Kim SY, Lee KH, Kim K, Kim TY, Lee HS, Hwang SS, Song KJ, Kang HS, Kim YH, Rhee JE: Acute appendicitis in young adults: low- versus standard-radiation-dose contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for diagnosis. Radiology. 2011, 260: 437-445. 10.1148/radiol.11102247.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Seo H, Lee KH, Kim HJ, Kim K, Kang SB, Kim SY, Kim YH: Diagnosis of acute appendicitis with sliding slab ray-sum interpretation of low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose intravenous contrast-enhanced CT scans. Am J Roentgenol. 2009, 193: 96-105. 10.2214/AJR.08.1237.CrossRef
26.
Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim S, Lee YJ, Kim KP, Lee HS, Ahn S, Kim T, Hwang SS, Song KJ, Kang SB, Kim DW, Park SH, Lee KH: Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 2012, 366: 1596-1605. 10.1056/NEJMoa1110734.CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
Huda W, Mettler FA: Volume CT dose index and dose-length product displayed during CT: what good are they?. Radiology. 2011, 258: 236-242. 10.1148/radiol.10100297.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Schmidt B, Westerman BL, Morgan HT, Saini S: Techniques and applications of automatic tube current modulation for CT. Radiology. 2004, 233: 649-657. 10.1148/radiol.2333031150.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA: Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology. 2010, 257: 158-166. 10.1148/radiol.10100047.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Joo S-M, Lee KH, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim K, Kim KJ, Kim B: Detection of the normal appendix with low-dose unenhanced CT: use of the sliding slab averaging technique. Radiology. 2009, 251: 780-787. 10.1148/radiol.2513081617.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Schauer DA, Linton OW: NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, medical exposure – are we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists?. Health Phys. 2009, 97: 1-5. 10.1097/01.HP.0000356672.44380.b7.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Brix G, Nagel HD, Stamm G, Veit R, Lechel U, Griebel J, Galanski M: Radiation exposure in multi-slice versus single-slice spiral CT: results of a nationwide survey. Eur Radiol. 2003, 13: 1979-1991. 10.1007/s00330-003-1883-y.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Hart D, Wall BF, Hiller MC, Shrimpton PC: Frequency and Collective Dose for Medical and Dental X-ray Examinations in the UK, 2008, HPA-CECE-012. 2010, Health Protection Agency: Chilton
35.
Bankier AA, Kressel HY: Through the Looking Glass revisited: the need for more meaning and less drama in the reporting of dose and dose reduction in CT. Radiology. 2012, 265: 4-8. 10.1148/radiol.12121145.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Kim B, Lee KH, Kim KJ, Mantiuk R, Kim HR, Kim YH: Artifacts in slab average-intensity-projection images reformatted from JPEG 2000 compressed thin-section abdominal CT data sets. Am J Roentgenol. 2008, 190: W342-350. 10.2214/AJR.07.3405.CrossRef
37.
Lee KH, Hong H, Hahn S, Kim B, Kim KJ, Kim YH: Summation or axial slab average intensity projection of abdominal thin-section CT datasets: can they substitute for the primary reconstruction from raw projection data?. J Digit Imaging. 2008, 21: 422-432. 10.1007/s10278-007-9067-y.CrossRefPubMed
38.
von Falck C, Galanski M, Shin HO: Informatics in radiology: sliding-thin-slab averaging for improved depiction of low-contrast lesions with radiation dose savings at thin-section CT. Radiographics. 2010, 30: 317-326. 10.1148/rg.302096007.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR: Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology. 2000, 215: 337-348. 10.1148/radiology.215.2.r00ma24337.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Sim JY, Kim HJ, Yeon JW, Suh BS, Kim KH, Ha YR, Paik SY: Added value of ultrasound re-evaluation for patients with equivocal CT findings of acute appendicitis: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol. 2013, 23: 1882-1890. 10.1007/s00330-013-2769-2.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Rosai J: Appendix. Rosai and Ackerman's Surgical Pathology. Edited by: Rosai J. 2004, Edinburgh, UK: Mosby, 758-759.
42.
Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Stemmermann GN, Lantz PE, Isaacson PG: Nonneoplastic Diseases of the Appendix. Gastrointestinal Pathology. Edited by: Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Stemmermann GN, Lantz PE, Isaacson PG. 2008, Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 504-505. 3
43.
Lally KP, Cox CS, Andrassy RJ: Appendix. Sabiston Textbook of Surgery: The Biological Basis of Modern Surgical Practice. Edited by: Townsend CM, Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox KL. 2004, Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders, 1382-17
44.
Kim K, Lee CC, Song KJ, Kim W, Suh G, Singer AJ: The impact of helical computed tomography on the negative appendectomy rate: a multi-center comparison. J Emerg Med. 2008, 34: 3-6. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.05.042.CrossRefPubMed
45.
46.
Wagner JM, McKinney WP, Carpenter JL: Does this patient have appendicitis?. JAMA. 1996, 276: 1589-1594. 10.1001/jama.1996.03540190061030.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Andersson RE: Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg. 2004, 91: 28-37. 10.1002/bjs.4464.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Lameris W, van Randen A, Go PM, Bouma WH, Donkervoort SC, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J, Boermeester MA: Single and combined diagnostic value of clinical features and laboratory tests in acute appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2009, 16: 835-842. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00486.x.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Leeuwenburgh MMN: Appendicitis is easily missed or wrongly diagnosed - imaging is needed. BMJ. 2011, 343: d5976-10.1136/bmj.d5976.CrossRef
50.
Weston AR, Jackson TJ, Blamey S: Diagnosis of appendicitis in adults by ultrasonography or computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005, 21: 368-379.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Gilmore T, Jordan C, Edelstein E: Right-sided diverticulitis mimics appendicitis. J Emerg Med. 2013, 44: e29-32. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.06.035.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Kim JH, Cheon JH, Park S, Kim BC, Lee SK, Kim TI, Kim WH: Relationship between disease location and age, obesity, and complications in Korean patients with acute diverticulitis: a comparison of clinical patterns with those of Western populations. Hepatogastroenterology. 2008, 55: 983-986.PubMed
53.
Velanovich V, Satava R: Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg. 1992, 58: 264-269.PubMed
54.
Sicard N, Tousignant P, Pineault R, Dube S: Non-patient factors related to rates of ruptured appendicitis. Br J Surg. 2007, 94: 214-221. 10.1002/bjs.5428.CrossRefPubMed
55.
56.
Lee KH, Lee HJ, Kim JH, Kang HS, Lee KW, Hong H, Chin HJ, Ha KS: Managing the CT data explosion: initial experiences of archiving volumetric datasets in a mini-PACS. J Digit Imaging. 2005, 18: 188-195. 10.1007/s10278-005-5163-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Lee KH, Kim YH, Hahn S, Lee KW, Kim TJ, Kang SB, Shin JH: Computed tomography diagnosis of acute appendicitis: advantages of reviewing thin-section datasets using sliding slab average intensity projection technique. Invest Radiol. 2006, 41: 579-585. 10.1097/01.rli.0000221999.22095.b7.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Lee KH, Lee HS, Park SH, Bajpai V, Choi YS, Kang SB, Kim KJ, Kim YH: Appendiceal diverticulitis: diagnosis and differentiation from usual acute appendicitis using computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007, 31: 763-769. 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3180340991.CrossRefPubMed
59.
O'Leary DP, Redmond HP, Andrews EJ: Low-dose abdominal CT for diagnosing appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 2012, 367: 478-Author’s reply 478–479PubMed
60.
Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ: Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med. 2011, 154: 789-796. 10.7326/0003-4819-154-12-201106210-00006.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Kaul S, Diamond GA: Good enough: a primer on the analysis and interpretation of noninferiority trials. Ann Intern Med. 2006, 145: 62-69. 10.7326/0003-4819-145-1-200607040-00011.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Krajewski S, Brown J, Phang PT, Raval M, Brown CJ: Impact of computed tomography of the abdomen on clinical outcomes in patients with acute right lower quadrant pain: a meta-analysis. Can J Surg. 2011, 54: 43-53. 10.1503/cjs.023509.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ: Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006, 295: 1152-1160. 10.1001/jama.295.10.1152.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Author
Soyeon Ahn
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-28

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Trials 1/2014 Go to the issue

Study protocol

Effectiveness of app-based relaxation for patients with chronic low back pain (Relaxback) and chronic neck pain (Relaxneck): study protocol for two randomized pragmatic trials

Research

Complex realities: community engagement for a paediatric randomized controlled malaria vaccine trial in Kilifi, Kenya

Study protocol

Effectiveness of the head CT choice decision aid in parents of children with minor head trauma: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial

Study protocol

Motivational interviewing with American Indian mothers to prevent early childhood caries: study design and methodology of a randomized control trial

Study protocol

Coronary Artery Disease Evaluation in Rheumatoid Arthritis (CADERA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

To investigate the prevention of OM-85 on bronchiectasis exacerbations (iPROBE) in Chinese patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial