Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 45, Issue 11, pp 1624–1628 | Cite as

Similar performance of Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems in young children with cystic fibrosis

  • Robert H. ClevelandEmail author
  • Gregory S. Sawicki
  • Catherine Stamoulis
Original Article

Abstract

Background

To assess the severity of lung disease in cystic fibrosis (CF), scoring systems based on chest radiographs (CXRs), CT and MRI have been used extensively, although primarily in research settings rather than for clinical purposes. It has recently been shown that those based on CXRs (primarily the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems) are as sensitive and valid as those based on CT. The reproducibility and correlation of both systems to pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were recently investigated and were found to be statistically identical. However, the relative performance of these systems has not been specifically assessed in children younger than 5 years old with mild lung disease, a critical age range in which PFTs is rarely performed.

Objective

To investigate and compare the performance of the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems in children 0-5 years old with predominantly mild lung disease.

Materials and methods

Fifty-five patients 0-5 years old with 105 CXRs were included in the study. Given that the goal was to compare system performance in mild disease, only the first two CXRs from each patient were included (all but five patients had two images). When only one image was available in the target age range, it only was included. Agreement between the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems was assessed using a 2X2 contingency table assuming binary classification of CF lung disease using CXR scoring systems (mild vs. non-mild). In the absence of PFTs or another external gold standard for comparison, the Wisconsin system was used as an arbitrary gold standard against which the Brasfield was compared. Correlation between the two systems was assessed via a concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) for repeated measures.

Results

Scores were rated as mild or non-mild based on published numerical cutoffs for each system. The systems agreed on 89/105 (85%) and disagreed on 16/105 (15%) of the CXRs. Agreement between the two systems was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Relative sensitivity and specificity of the Brasfield system (which since using the Wisconsin as the gold standard reflects relative agreement rather than absolute performance of the Brasfield) was also fairly high (85% and 84%, respectively). Relatively high correlation between the two systems was also estimated (r = 0.72).

Conclusion

The current study, powered to find at least a mild correlation between the two systems, confirms the Brasfield and Wisconsin systems are in agreement when assessing CF lung disease even in patients younger than 5 years of age with predominantly mild disease.

Keywords

Brasfield system Chest radiography Children Cystic fibrosis Scoring Wisconsin system 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Cleveland RH, Neish AS, Zurakowski D et al (1998) Cystic fibrosis: a system for assessing and predicting progression. AJR Am J Roentgenol 170:1067–1072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cleveland RH, Neish AS, Zurakowski D et al (1998) Cystic fibrosis: predictors of accelerated decline and distribution of disease in 230 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:1311–1315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brasfield D, Hicks G, Soong S et al (1980) Evaluation of scoring system of the chest radiograph in cystic fibrosis: a collaborative study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 134:1195–1198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wong EB, Regnis J, Shnier RC et al (1993) The relationship between tests of lung function and three chest radiological scoring systems in patients with cystic fibrosis. Australas Radiol 37:265–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sawyer SM, Carlin JB, DeCampo M et al (1994) Critical evaluation of three chest radiograph scores in cystic fibrosis. Thorax 49:863–866PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weatherly MR, Palmer CG, Peters ME et al (1993) Wisconsin cystic fibrosis chest radiograph scoring system. Pediatrics 91:488–495PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matthew DJ, Warner JO, Chrispin AR et al (1997) The relationship between chest radiographic scores and respiratory function tests in children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Radiol 5:198–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhalla M, Turcios N, Aponte V et al (1991) Cystic fibrosis: scoring system with thin-section CT. Radiology 179:783–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nathanson I, Conboy K, Murphy S et al (1991) Ultrafast computerized tomography of the chest in cystic fibrosis: a new scoring system. Pediatr Pulmonol 11:81–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brody AS, Klein JS, Molina PL et al (2004) High-resolution computed tomography in young patients with cystic fibrosis: distribution of abnormalities and correlation with pulmonary function tests. J Pediatr 145:32–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brody AS, Kosorok MR, Li Z et al (2006) Reproducibility of a scoring system for computed tomography scanning in cystic fibrosis. J Thorac Imaging 21:380Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wielputz MO, Eichinger M, Puderbach M (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging ofcystic fibrosis lung disease. J Thorac Imaging 28:151–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wielpütz MO, Puderbach M, Kopp-Schneider A et al (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging detects changes in structure and perfusion, and response to therapy in early cystic fibrosis lung disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 189:956–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanders DB, Li Z, Brody AS et al (2011) Chest computed tomography scores of severity are associated with future lung disease progression in children with cystic fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 184:816–821PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zeger SL, Liang KY (1986) Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 42:121–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cleveland RH, Zurakowski D, Slattery DM et al (2007) Chest radiographs for outcome assessment in cystic fibrosis. Proc Am Thorac Soc 4:302–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Slattery DM, Zurakowski D, Colin AA et al (2004) CF: an X-ray database to assess effect of aerosolized tobramycin. Pediatr Pulmonol 38:23–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cleveland RH, Zurakowski D, Slattery D et al (2009) Cystic fibrosis genotype and assessing rates of decline in pulmonary status. Radiology 253:813–821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cleveland RH, Stamoulis C, Sawicki G et al (2014) Brasfield and Wisconsin scoring systems have equal value in outcome assessment of cystic fibrosis lung disease. Pediatr Radiol 44:529–534Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lesnick BL, Davis SD (2011) Infant pulmonary function testing overview of technology and practical considerations—new current procedural terminology codes effective 2010. Chest 139:1197–1202PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanders DB, Li Z, Rock MJ et al (2012) The sensitivity of lung disease surrogates in detecting chest CT abnormalities in children with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol 47:567–573PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koscik RE, Kosorok MR, Philip M et al (2000) Wisconsin cystic fibrosis chest radiograph scoring system: validation and standardization for application to longitudinal studies. Pediatr Pulmonol 29:457–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merkus PJFM, de Jongste JC, Stocks J (2005) Respiratory function measurements in infants and children. Eur Respir Mon 31:166–194Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    King TS, Chinchilli VM, Carrasco JL (2007) A repeated measures concordance correlation coefficient. Stat Med 26:3095–3113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Subbarao P, Stanojevic S, Brown M et al (2013) Lung clearance index as an outcome measure for clinical trials in young children with cystic fibrosis. A pilot study using inhaled hypertonic saline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 188:456–460PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert H. Cleveland
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gregory S. Sawicki
    • 2
  • Catherine Stamoulis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyBoston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Division of Respiratory Diseases, Department of MedicineBoston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations