Chest radiograph classification and severity of suspected COVID-19 by different radiologist groups and attending clinicians: multi-reader, multi-case study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify reader agreement for the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) diagnostic and severity classification for COVID-19 on chest radiographs (CXR), in particular agreement for an indeterminate CXR that could instigate CT imaging, from single and paired images. METHODS: Twenty readers (four groups of five individuals)-consultant chest (CCR), general consultant (GCR), and specialist registrar (RSR) radiologists, and infectious diseases clinicians (IDR)-assigned BSTI categories and severity in addition to modified Covid-Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema Score (Covid-RALES), to 305 CXRs (129 paired; 2 time points) from 176 guideline-defined COVID-19 patients. Percentage agreement with a consensus of two chest radiologists was calculated for (1) categorisation to those needing CT (indeterminate) versus those that did not (classic/probable, non-COVID-19); (2) severity; and (3) severity change on paired CXRs using the two scoring systems. RESULTS: Agreement with consensus for the indeterminate category was low across all groups (28-37%). Agreement for other BSTI categories was highest for classic/probable for the other three reader groups (66-76%) compared to GCR (49%). Agreement for normal was similar across all radiologists (54-61%) but lower for IDR (31%). Agreement for a severe CXR was lower for GCR (65%), compared to the other three reader groups (84-95%). For all groups, agreement for changes across paired CXRs was modest. CONCLUSION: Agreement for the indeterminate BSTI COVID-19 CXR category is low, and generally moderate for the other BSTI categories and for severity change, suggesting that the test, rather than readers, is limited in utility for both deciding disposition and serial monitoring. KEY POINTS: • Across different reader groups, agreement for COVID-19 diagnostic categorisation on CXR varies widely. • Agreement varies to a degree that may render CXR alone ineffective for triage, especially for indeterminate cases. • Agreement for serial CXR change is moderate, limiting utility in guiding management.

Growing small solid nodules in lung cancer screening: safety and efficacy of a 200 mm3 minimum size threshold for multidisciplinary team referral.

The optimal management of small but growing nodules remains unclear. The SUMMIT study nodule management algorithm uses a specific threshold volume of 200 mm3 before referral of growing solid nodules to the multidisciplinary team for further investigation is advised, with growing nodules below this threshold kept under observation within the screening programme. Malignancy risk of growing solid nodules of size >200 mm3 at initial 3-month interval scan was 58.3% at a per-nodule level, compared with 13.3% in growing nodules of size ≤200 mm3 (relative risk 4.4, 95% CI 2.17 to 8.83). The positive predictive value of a combination of nodule growth (defined as percentage volume change of ≥25%), and size >200 mm3 was 65.9% (29/44) at a cancer-per-nodule basis, or 60.5% (23/38) on a cancer-per-participant basis. False negative rate of the protocol was 1.9% (95% CI 0.33% to 9.94%). These findings support the use of a 200 mm3 minimum volume threshold for referral as effective at reducing unnecessary multidisciplinary team referrals for small growing nodules, while maintaining early-stage lung cancer diagnosis.

Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866. FINDINGS: Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity). INTERPRETATION: Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response. FUNDING: GRAIL.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and influence of professional medical guidance.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy presents a major challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is crucial to address the factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy necessary to control the associated morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to investigate the impact of professional medical guidance on the likelihood of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in immigrants of USA and Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 92 immigrants in the USA and Canada who predominantly spoke Malayalam were recruited using social media platforms. An online survey was administered investigating participants' confidence in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Following, a short webinar was conducted by a medical professional explaining the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. A postwebinar survey was immediately given assessing the confidence and likelihood of receiving the vaccine. SPSS was used to generate descriptive statistics and Pearson Chi-square analysis where appropriate. RESULTS: Results revealed that participants who attended the webinar reported greater confidence in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. There was a statistically significant difference between pre- and postwebinar confidence scores for the COVID-19 vaccine, χ2 (12, n = 80) = 43.34, P < 0.01. CONCLUSION: Results from the current study demonstrate the successful delivery of professional medical guidance to the general public through online small-group sessions to help address the misconceptions surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine and combat vaccine hesitancy among vulnerable populations. Future studies should focus on interventions addressing vaccine hesitancy in larger and diverse populations and analyze other barriers to vaccination.

COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary.

Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.

'Long-COVID': a cross-sectional study of persisting symptoms, biomarker and imaging abnormalities following hospitalisation for COVID-19.

Large numbers of people are being discharged from hospital following COVID-19 without assessment of recovery. In 384 patients (mean age 59.9 years; 62% male) followed a median 54 days post discharge, 53% reported persistent breathlessness, 34% cough and 69% fatigue. 14.6% had depression. In those discharged with elevated biomarkers, 30.1% and 9.5% had persistently elevated d-dimer and C reactive protein, respectively. 38% of chest radiographs remained abnormal with 9% deteriorating. Systematic follow-up after hospitalisation with COVID-19 identifies the trajectory of physical and psychological symptom burden, recovery of blood biomarkers and imaging which could be used to inform the need for rehabilitation and/or further investigation.

Systematic evaluation and external validation of 22 prognostic models among hospitalised adults with COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

The number of proposed prognostic models for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation.We independently externally validated the performance of candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at the time of admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictors in univariable analyses.We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.82). The most discriminating univariable predictors were admission oxygen saturation on room air for in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81), and age for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than these univariable predictors, across a range of threshold probabilities.Admission oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated here offered incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors.