Management of lung cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic: A review

Since its inception, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected health care as a whole. Cancer patients in general and those suffering from lung cancer in particular are a vulnerable group because of their many intrinsic characteristics and care needs. How SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection affects these patients regarding their risk of infection and outcome in this patient cohort is still to be determined. In this review, we tried to summarize our main concerns regarding COVID-19 in the context of cancer patients from a clinical and multidisciplinary approach. Different types of lung cancer treatments (chemotherapy, radiation therapy and immunotherapy) may also influence the risk of infection and condition the patient's risk of having a worse outcome. Lung cancer patients require frequent radiologic study follow-ups, which may be affected by COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 related incidental radiologic findings can appear in routinely scheduled radiology tests, which may be difficult to interpret. Also cancer treatment induced pneumonitis may have similar radiologic features similar to those in acute SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and lead to a wrong diagnosis. The different health care needs, the requirement for continuous health care access and follow-ups, and the clinical traials in which this patient population might be enrrolled are all being affected by the current COVID-19 health crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has put health care providers and institutions in difficult situations and obliged them to face challenging ethical scenarios. These issues, in turn, have also affected the psychological well-being of health care workers.Copyright © The Author(s) 2021.

A narrative review on radiation risk from imaging for COVID-19: Breaking the myths and the mithya

Radiotherapy-induced secondary malignancy is a well-known occurrence. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people have undergone serial computed tomography (CT) imaging, and concerns have been raised regarding radiation-induced malignancies due to frequent scanning. Accordingly, various low and ultra-low-dose CT (LDCT) thorax protocols have been developed to reduce the dose of radiation. Major governing bodies worldwide have established guidelines regarding the indications for CT scans and chest X-rays during the pandemic. We, therefore, aimed to provide facts about the effects of radiation (both diagnostic and therapeutic). Through this article, we intend to break the myths and 'mithya' (misbeliefs) regarding diagnostic radiation and its association with cancer in this COVID-19 era. For this review, we performed a search in Google using specific keywords pertaining to imaging during COVID-19 and radiation risk. We also included the names of various global governing bodies in the Google search. We included only full text articles and guidelines from authentic websites. From this review, we conclude that if we follow the recommendations of various global governing bodies and use CT scan only in cases of moderate to severe COVID-related symptoms, adhere to the principle of 'as low as reasonably achievable' for radiation protection, and use LDCT scan protocols, we can significantly reduce the mean effective radiation dose delivered and the estimated cancer risk.Copyright © 2023 Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment. All rights reserved.

Clinical, Biochemical, and Radiological Presentation of RT-PCR-Positive vs RT-PCR-Negative SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia Requiring ICU Care: An Observational, Cross-Sectional, Single-Center Study in Kalaburagi, Kalyana Karnataka.

Introduction Studies have reported similar clinical, biochemical, and radiological features between real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-positive and RT-PCR-negative patients. Therefore, the present study aims to assess differences in RT-PCR-positive versus RT-PCR-negative patients' characteristics. Methods We prospectively included 70 consecutive patients with typical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-like clinical features who were either RT-PCR-positive or negative, requiring admission to the intensive care unit. The patients were classified into positive and negative RT-PCR groups and evaluated for clinical features, comorbidities, laboratory findings, and radiologic features. Results Fifty-seven point one percent (57.1%; 40/70) were RT-PCR positive, and 42.9% (30/70) were RT-PCR negative patients. The respiratory rate was higher among negative patients (P = 0.02), whereas the mean duration of fever was longer (3.34 vs 2.5; P = 0.022) among positive patients. At presentation, RT-PCR-negative patients had lower saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2) (near significant P = 0.058). Evaluation of co-morbidities revealed no differences. The neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (4.57 vs 6.52; P = 0.048), C-reactive protein (CRP) (9.97 vs 22.7; P = 0.007), and serum ferritin (158 vs 248.52; P = 0.010) were higher in patients who tested negative for RT-PCR. Thrombocytopenia (2.42 vs 1.76; P = 0.009), D-dimer levels (408.91 vs 123.06; P = 0.03), and interleukin (IL-6) levels (219.3 vs 80.81; P = 0.04) were significantly elevated among RT-PCR positive patients. The percentage of lung involvement in negative cases was 42.29+/-22.78 vs 36.21+/-21.8 in positive cases (P=0.23). The CT severity score was similar in both cohorts. Conclusion Both RT-PCR-positive and negative patients have similar clinical, biochemical, and radiological features. Considering that we are amidst a pandemic, it is advisable to have a similar approach irrespective of the RT-PCR report and triage and isolate accordingly. We recommend an RT-PCR-negative intensive care unit (ICU) ward and that the treating physician take a call on the management with a holistic approach driven clinically by the laboratory findings and helped by radiological findings. Stressing only on the RT-PCR report for management can be counterproductive.

Chest CT Findings and SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Trauma Patients-Is There a Prediction towards Higher Complication Rates?

BACKGROUND: Polytrauma patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections may be associated with an increased complication rate. The main goal of this study was to analyze the clinical course of trauma patients with COVID infection and a positive CT finding. METHODS: This was a retrospective in-hospital study. Polytrauma patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infections were included in our analysis. The outcome parameters were pulmonary complication during admission, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, pneumonia, mortality, length of stay and readmission < 30 days. RESULTS: 48 patients were included in the study. Trauma patients in the age-adjusted matched-pair analysis with typical changes in SARS-CoV-2 infection in CT findings showed significantly more pulmonary complications in general and significantly more cases of pneumonia (complications: 56% vs. 11%, p = 0.046; pneumonia 44% vs. 0%, p = 0.023). In addition, the clinical course of polytrauma patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection showed a high rate of pulmonary complications in the inpatient course (53%). CONCLUSION: The results of our study show that the changes in the CT findings of trauma patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are a good indicator of further inpatient outcomes. Similarly, polytrauma patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection and positive CT findings are shown to have increased risk for pulmonary complications.

Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcome in RT-PCR positive and false-negative RT-PCR for COVID-19: A Retrospective analysis.

Cases with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative pneumonia are an understudied group with uncertainty remaining regarding their treatment approach. We aimed to compare the clinical and radiological characteristics of RT-PCR positive and clinically diagnosed RT-PCR negative COVID-19. This was a single-centre retrospective study conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Western India. All patients (age ≥18 years) with suspicion of COVID-19 with SARI (severe acute respiratory infections) who were subjected to RT-PCR testing (nasal/oropharyngeal swab) were included. Based on RTPCR results, patients were categorized and compared for demographic, clinical, and biochemical characteristics and outcomes. Out of 500 patients, 339 (67.8%) found RT-PCR positive. Except for the radiological findings, both groups differ in clinical presentation, disease severity (inflammatory markers), and outcome. RT-PCR-positive patients had raised ferritin, NLR (Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio), LDH, and high mortality compared to the swab-negative group. In-hospital mortality was also significantly high in RT-PCR positive group (HR=1.9, 95% CI=1.4-2.5, p=0.001). On multivariate analysis, NLR, ferritin, and d-dimer were the independent predictors of mortality in RT-PCR-positive (p=0.038, 0.054, and 0.023). At the same time, raised TLC (total leukocyte count) and procalcitonin were the risk factors for poor outcomes in RT-PCR-negative patients (p=0.041 and 0.038). We found significantly raised ferritin, NLR, and LDH levels and increased mortality in RT-PCR positive patients compared to RT-PCR negative. Incorporating clinical features, radiological, and biochemical parameters could be prudent while managing the RT-PCR-negative patients.

Temporal changes of haematological and radiological findings of the COVID-19 infection-a review of literature.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a systemic viral infection which mainly targets the human respiratory system with many secondary clinical manifestations especially affecting the hematopoietic system and haemostasis. Few studies have highlighted the prognostic value of blood findings such as lymphopenia, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, platelet/lymphocyte ratio, LDH, CRP, cardiac troponin, low-density lipoproteins and chest radiographic abnormality. A study of progressions of blood and radiological results may help to identify patients at high risk of severe outcomes. This systematic review aimed to assess the temporal progression of blood and radiology findings of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted on Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify articles published for peripheral blood investigation and radiological results of COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were included in this review. The common laboratory features reported include lymphopenia, elevated levels of C-reactive proteins and lactate dehydrogenase. For radiological signs, ground-glass opacifications, consolidations, and crazy paving patterns were frequently reported. There is a correlation between lymphocyte count, neutrophil count and biomarkers such as C-reactive proteins and lactate dehydrogenase; at a later phase of the disease (more than 7 days since onset of symptoms), lymphopenia worsens while neutrophil count, C-reactive protein levels and lactate dehydrogenase levels increase. Frequencies of ground-glass opacifications and ground-glass opacifications with consolidations decrease at a later phase of the disease while that of consolidation and crazy paving pattern rises as the disease progresses. More extensive lung involvement was also seen more frequently in the later phases. CONCLUSION: The correlation between temporal progression and the reported blood and radiological results may be helpful to monitor and evaluate disease progression and severity.