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 (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 (rho = 0.443-0.448), TSS (rho = 0.435-0.437), and CTSS (rho = 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.