Observer agreement and clinical significance of chest CT reporting in patients suspected of COVID-19

Abstract

Objectives To assess interobserver agreement and clinical significance of chest CT reporting in patients suspected of COVID-19. Methods From 16 to 24 March 2020, 241 consecutive patients addressed to hospital for COVID-19 suspicion had both chest CT and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. Eight observers (2 thoracic and 2 general senior radiologists, 2 junior radiologists, and 2 emergency physicians) retrospectively categorized each CT into one out of 4 categories (evocative, compatible for COVID-19 pneumonia, not evocative, and normal). Observer agreement for categorization between all readers and pairs of readers with similar experience was evaluated with the Kappa coefficient. The results of a consensus categorization were correlated to RT-PCR. Results Observer agreement across the 4 categories was good between all readers (κ value 0.61 95% CI 0.60-0.63) and moderate to good between pairs of readers (0.54-0.75). It was very good (κ 0.81 95% CI 0.79-0.83), fair (κ 0.32 95% CI 0.29-0.34), moderate (κ 0.56 95% CI 0.54-0.58), and moderate (0.58 95% CI 0.56-0.61) for the categories evocative, compatible, not evocative, and normal, respectively. RT-PCR was positive in 97%, 50%, 31%, and 11% of cases in the respective categories. Observer agreement was lower (p < 0.001) and RT-PCR positive cases less frequently categorized evocative in the presence of an underlying pulmonary disease (p < 0.001). Conclusion Interobserver agreement for chest CT reporting using categorization of findings is good in patients suspected of COVID-19. Among patients considered for hospitalization in an epidemic context, CT categorized evocative is highly predictive of COVID-19, whereas the predictive value of CT decreases between the categories compatible and not evocative. Key Points • In patients suspected of COVID-19, interobserver agreement for chest CT reporting into categories is good, and very good to categorize CT "evocative." • Chest CT can participate in estimating the likelihood of COVID-19 in patients presenting to hospital during the outbreak, CT categorized "evocative" being highly predictive of the disease whereas almost a third of patients with CT "not evocative" had a positive RT-PCR in our study. • Observer agreement is lower and CTs of positive RT-PCR cases less frequently "evocative" in presence of an underlying pulmonary disease.

Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Patients with Negative Nasopharyngeal Swabs: Reliability of Radiological and Clinical Diagnosis and Accuracy Versus Serology

“…The substantial agreement among radiologists for chest CT categorization is in accordance with a recent study by Debray and coworkers [19]. In this report, authors observed a good performance of radiologists for predicting COVID-19 pneumonia using a similar categorical assessment scheme.…”

“…Both radiologic and clinical evaluations were accurate when compared to serology, showing high sensitivity and specificity, good NPV, and poor PPV (Table 2a,b). The addition of diagnoses with a low level of certainty reduced specificity and PPV, due to an increase of false positives [19].…”

Blood fibrocytes are associated with severity and prognosis in COVID-19 pneumonia

“…All patients underwent a chest computed tomography (CT) scan on admission to assess the pulmonary damages related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined by bilateral ground glass opacities or alveolar condensation. All CT scans were reviewed by one expert radiologist blinded to patients’ course, who rated the extent of COVID-19 damages as representing <25%, 25%–50%, 50%–75%, or >75% of total lung parenchyma ( 26 ). As part of the French COVID cohort, survivors underwent a second chest CT scan 3 mo after admission to assess the persistence of lung lesions.…”

A tricompartmental model of lung oxygenation disruption to explain pulmonary and systemic pathology in severe COVID-19

“…Regardless of the presence of larger clots, whether embolic in origin or developing locally as a consequence of immunothrombosis, pulmonary infarction would account for the unusually high incidence of chest pain at presentation owing to involvement of the exquisitely pain-sensitive pleural surface. 14 , 17 , 35 , 36 However, considering the small size of the vessels supplying the area of lung occupied by ground glass opacities, visualisation of PIC-induced clots is limited by the resolution constraints of CT, although clots can be easily identified at post-mortem. Despite the spatial limitation of CTPA in detecting microemboli or microthrombi, magnetic resonance pulmonary perfusion and single-photon emission CT (SPECT) pulmonary perfusion could potentially show the small areas of hypoperfusion secondary to PIC (and at the same time could also confirm or exclude pulmonary embolism to large and medium-sized arteries).…”