ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT imaging work-flow during the three waves in a medical institution of southern of Italy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the numbers and results of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT studies acquired during the following three periods of the COVID-19 waves: 1) February 3-April 30, 2020; 2) October 15, 2020-January 15, 2021; and 3) January 18-April 16, 2021. RESULTS: A total of 861 PET/CT studies in 725 patients (388 men, mean age 64 ± 4 years) was acquired during the three waves of COVID-19 pandemic. The majority (94%) was performed for diagnosis/staging (n = 300) or follow-up (n = 512) of neoplastic diseases. The remaining 49 studies (6%) were acquired for non-oncological patients. The distribution of number and type of clinical indications for PET/CT studies in the three waves were comparable (p = 0.06). Conversely, the occurrence of patients positive for COVID-19 infection progressively increased (p < 0.0001) from the first to third wave; in particular, patients with COVID-19 had active infection before PET/CT study as confirmed by molecular oro/nasopharyngeal swab. CONCLUSION: Despite the restrictive medical measures for the emergency, the number of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT studies was unchanged during the three waves guaranteeing the diagnostic performance of PET/CT imaging for oncological patients.
ABSTRACT
[...]households are the stage of the food supply chain where the greater part of food waste is generated in absolute terms. [...]the scientific debate is strongly lead by the US, UK, and Italy, at least in numerical terms. Looking at the sponsors, it is clear that the top 15 contributors are basically supported by public funding, especially the EU, China, US, and Canada, followed by UK and Norway (Figure 4). [...]the debate about household food waste seems to be strictly related to the availability of a country’s financial resources for research funding. COVID-19 has been a hindering factor for the application of different methods, as contacts with people have been forbidden during the recurrent 2020–2021 lockdowns (and lockdowns are still occurring at the time of writing this editorial), thus limiting the opportunities to enquire into the issue with other methods (diary, waste audits, ethnographic approaches). [...]both from a geographical and methodological point of view, we did not collect the variety of studies we were aiming to, especially contributions from developing economies (see Table 1).