Can Computed Tomography Replace or Supplement Autopsy?

Authors

Sarah L. Lathrop, Office of the Medical Investigator, Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Philip W. Wiest, Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Sam W. Andrews, Tarrant County Medical Examiner Office, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Jamie Elifritz, Office of the Medical Investigator, Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Janet P. Price, Independent Contractor/Consultant, Waco, Texas, USA.
Gary W. Mlady, Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Ross E. Zumwalt, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Chandra Y. Gerrard, Radiology Informatics/Information Technology, University of New Mexico Hospitals, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Valerie L. Poland, Office of the Medical Investigator, Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Kurt B. Nolte, Office of the Medical Investigator, Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

3-1-2023

Abstract

Postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) has been integrated into the practice of many forensic pathologists. To evaluate the utility of PMCT in supplementing and/or supplanting medicolegal autopsy, we conducted a prospective double-blind comparison of abnormal findings reported by the autopsy pathologist with those reported by a radiologist reviewing the PMCT. We reviewed 890 cases: 167 with blunt force injury (BFI), 63 with pediatric trauma (under 5 years), 203 firearm injuries, and 457 drug poisoning deaths. Autopsy and radiology reports were coded using the Abbreviated Injury Scale and abnormal findings and cause of death (COD) were compared for congruence in consensus conferences with novel pathologists and radiologists. Overall sensitivity for recognizing abnormal findings was 71% for PMCT and 74.6% for autopsy. Sensitivities for PMCT/autopsy were 74%/73.1% for BFI, 61.5%/71.4% for pediatric trauma, 84.9%/83.7% for firearm injuries, and 56.5%/66.4% for drug poisoning deaths. COD assigned by reviewing PMCT/autopsy was correct in 88%/95.8% of BFI cases, 99%/99.5% of firearm fatalities, 82.5%/98.5% of pediatric trauma deaths, and 84%/100% of drug poisoning deaths of individuals younger than 50. Both autopsy and PMCT were imperfect in recognizing injuries. However, both methods identified the most important findings and are sufficient to establish COD in cases of BFI, pediatric trauma, firearm injuries and drug poisoning in individuals younger than 50. Ideally, all forensic pathologists would have access to a CT scanner and a consulting radiologist. This would allow a flexible approach that meets the diagnostic needs of each case and best serves decedents' families and other stakeholders.

Recommended Citation

Lathrop SL, Wiest PW, Andrews SW, Elifritz J, Price JP, Mlady GW, Zumwalt RE, Gerrard CY, Poland VL, Nolte KB. Can computed tomography replace or supplement autopsy? J Forensic Sci. 2023 Mar;68(2):524-535. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15217. Epub 2023 Feb 8. PMID: 36752321.