Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Lancet Oncol ; 23(2): 270-278, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1616869

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic surveillance is recommended for patients with Barrett's oesophagus because, although the progression risk is low, endoscopic intervention is highly effective for high-grade dysplasia and cancer. However, repeated endoscopy has associated harms and access has been limited during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the role of a non-endoscopic device (Cytosponge) coupled with laboratory biomarkers and clinical factors to prioritise endoscopy for Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: We first conducted a retrospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study in patients older than 18 years who were having endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus (with intestinal metaplasia confirmed by TFF3 and a minimum Barrett's segment length of 1 cm [circumferential or tongues by the Prague C and M criteria]). All patients had received the Cytosponge and confirmatory endoscopy during the BEST2 (ISRCTN12730505) and BEST3 (ISRCTN68382401) clinical trials, from July 7, 2011, to April 1, 2019 (UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio 9461). Participants were divided into training (n=557) and validation (n=334) cohorts to identify optimal risk groups. The biomarkers evaluated were overexpression of p53, cellular atypia, and 17 clinical demographic variables. Endoscopic biopsy diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or cancer was the primary endpoint. Clinical feasibility of a decision tree for Cytosponge triage was evaluated in a real-world prospective cohort from Aug 27, 2020 (DELTA; ISRCTN91655550; n=223), in response to COVID-19 and the need to provide an alternative to endoscopic surveillance. FINDINGS: The prevalence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer determined by the current gold standard of endoscopic biopsy was 17% (92 of 557 patients) in the training cohort and 10% (35 of 344) in the validation cohort. From the new biomarker analysis, three risk groups were identified: high risk, defined as atypia or p53 overexpression or both on Cytosponge; moderate risk, defined by the presence of a clinical risk factor (age, sex, and segment length); and low risk, defined as Cytosponge-negative and no clinical risk factors. The risk of high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer in the high-risk group was 52% (68 of 132 patients) in the training cohort and 41% (31 of 75) in the validation cohort, compared with 2% (five of 210) and 1% (two of 185) in the low-risk group, respectively. In the real-world setting, Cytosponge results prospectively identified 39 (17%) of 223 patients as high risk (atypia or p53 overexpression, or both) requiring endoscopy, among whom the positive predictive value was 31% (12 of 39 patients) for high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer and 44% (17 of 39) for any grade of dysplasia. INTERPRETATION: Cytosponge atypia, p53 overexpression, and clinical risk factors (age, sex, and segment length) could be used to prioritise patients for endoscopy. Further investigation could validate their use in clinical practice and lead to a substantial reduction in endoscopy procedures compared with current surveillance pathways. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Innovate UK.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Barrett Esophagus/pathology , COVID-19 , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Patient Selection , Watchful Waiting/methods , Adenocarcinoma/diagnostic imaging , Adenocarcinoma/metabolism , Aged , Barrett Esophagus/diagnostic imaging , Barrett Esophagus/metabolism , Barrett Esophagus/therapy , Biomarkers/metabolism , COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Decision-Making , Clinical Trials as Topic , Cross-Sectional Studies , Decision Trees , Disease Progression , Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Esophageal Neoplasms/metabolism , Esophagoscopy , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Trefoil Factor-3/metabolism , Tumor Suppressor Protein p53/metabolism
2.
Int J Med Sci ; 17(16): 2561-2569, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-833375

ABSTRACT

Background: During the outbreak period of COVID-19 pneumonia, cancer patients have been neglected and in greater danger. Furthermore, the differential diagnosis between COVID-19 pneumonia and radiation pneumonitis in cancer patients remains a challenge. This study determined their clinical presentations and radiological features in order to early diagnose and separate COVID-19 pneumonia from radiation pneumonitis patients promptly. Methods and Findings: From January 21, 2020 to February 18, 2020, 112 patients diagnosed with suspected COVID-19 were selected consecutively. A retrospective analysis including all patients' presenting was performed. Four patients from 112 suspected individals were selected, including 2 males and 2 females with a median age of 54 years (range 39-64 years). After repeated pharyngeal swab nucleic acid tests, 1 case was confirmed and 3 cases were excluded from COVID-19 pneumonia. Despite the comparable morphologic characteristics of lung CT imaging, the location, extent, and distribution of lung lesions between COVID-19 pneumonia and radiation pneumonitis differed significantly. Conclusions: Lung CT imaging combined with clinical and laboratory findings can facilitate early diagnosis and appropriate management of COVID-19 pneumonia with a history of malignancy and radiation therapy.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Diagnosis, Differential , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Radiation Pneumonitis/diagnostic imaging , Adult , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Esophageal Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Female , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms/pathology , Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Neoplasms/virology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
3.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg ; 160(2): 585-592.e2, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-46386

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To illustrate the clinical course and difficulties in early diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients after thoracic surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical course of the first 11 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 after thoracic surgery in early January 2020. Postoperative clinical, laboratory, and radiologic records and the time line of clinical course were summarized. Potential prognostic factors were evaluated. RESULTS: In the 11 confirmed cases (3 female, 8 male), median days from symptom onset to case detection was 8. Insidious symptom onset and misinterpreted postoperative changes on chest computed tomography (CT) resulted in delay in diagnosis. There were 3 fatalities due to respiratory failure, whereas 4 severe and 4 mild cases recovered and were discharged. All patients had once experienced leukocytosis and eosinopenia. Remittent fever and resected lung segments ≥5 were associated with fatality. CONCLUSIONS: The case fatality rate of postsurgical patients subsequently diagnosed with COVID-19 was 27.3%. Insidious symptom onset, postoperative leukocytosis with lymphopenia, and postsurgical CT changes overshadowed the early signs of viral pneumonia. Dynamic symptom monitoring, serial chest CTs, and tests for viral RNA and serum antibody improve the chance for prompt detection of COVID-19. Consideration should be given to preadmission and preoperative screening and strict contact isolation during the postoperative period.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Lung Neoplasms/surgery , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Thoracic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Aged , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Delayed Diagnosis , Diagnostic Errors , Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Esophageal Neoplasms/mortality , Female , Host Microbial Interactions , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Predictive Value of Tests , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Thoracic Surgical Procedures/mortality , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL