Chest x-ray severity score in COVID-19 patients on emergency department admission: a two-centre study.

BACKGROUND: Integration of imaging and clinical parameters could improve the stratification of COVID-19 patients on emergency department (ED) admission. We aimed to assess the extent of COVID-19 pulmonary abnormalities on chest x-ray (CXR) using a semiquantitative severity score, correlating it with clinical data and testing its interobserver agreement. METHODS: From February 22 to April 8, 2020, 926 consecutive patients referring to ED of two institutions in Northern Italy for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were reviewed. Patients with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction positive for SARS-CoV-2 and CXR images on ED admission were included (295 patients, median age 69 years, 199 males). Five readers independently and blindly reviewed all CXRs, rating pulmonary parenchymal involvement using a 0-3 semiquantitative score in 1-point increments on 6 lung zones (range 0-18). Interobserver agreement was assessed with weighted Cohen's κ, correlations between median CXR score and clinical data with Spearman's ρ, and the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Median score showed negative correlation with SpO2 (ρ = -0.242, p < 0.001), positive correlation with white cell count (ρ = 0.277, p < 0.001), lactate dehydrogenase (ρ = 0.308, p < 0.001), and C-reactive protein (ρ = 0.367, p < 0.001), being significantly higher in subsequently dead patients (p = 0.003). Considering overall scores, readers' pairings yielded moderate (κ = 0.449, p < 0.001) to almost perfect interobserver agreement (κ = 0.872, p < 0.001), with better interobserver agreement between readers of centre 2 (up to κ = 0.872, p < 0.001) than centre 1 (κ = 0.764, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Proposed CXR pulmonary severity score in COVID-19 showed moderate to almost perfect interobserver agreement and significant but weak correlations with clinical parameters, potentially furthering CXR integration in patients' stratification.

Incidental physiological sliding hiatal hernia: a single center comparison study between CT with water enema and CT colonography.

PURPOSE: Hiatal hernia is a well-known factor impacting on most mechanisms underlying gastroesophageal reflux, related with the risk of developing complications such as erosive esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus and ultimately, esophageal adenocarcinoma. It is our firm opinion that an erroneous reporting of hiatal hernia in CT exams performed with colonic distention may trigger a consecutive diagnostic process that is not only unnecessary, inducing a unmotivated anxiety in the patient, but also expensive and time-consuming for both the patient and the healthcare system. The purposes of our study were to determine whether colonic distention at CT with water enema and CT colonography can induce small sliding hiatal hernias and to detect whether hiatal hernias size modifications could be considered significant for both water and gas distention techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 400 consecutive patients, 200 undergoing CT-WE and 200 undergoing CTC, including 59 subjects who also underwent a routine abdominal CT evaluation on a different time, used as internal control, while a separate group of 200 consecutive patients who underwent abdominal CT evaluation was used as external control. Two abdominal radiologists assessed the CT exams for the presence of a sliding hiatal hernia, grading the size as small, moderate, or large; the internal control groups were directly compared with the corresponding CT-WE or CTC study looking for a change in hernia size. We used the Student's t test applying a size-specific correction factor, in order to account for the effect of colonic distention: these "corrected" values were then individually compared with the external control group. RESULTS: A sliding hiatal hernia was present in 51 % (102/200) of the CT-WE patients and in 48.5 % (97/200) of the CTC patients. Internal control CT of the 31 patients with a hernia at CT-WE showed resolution of the hernia in 58.1 % (18/31) of patients, including 76.5 % (13/17) and 45.5 % (5/11) of small and moderate hernias. Comparison CT of the 28 patients with a hiatal hernia at CTC showed the absence of the hernia in 57.1 % (16/28) patients, including 68.8 % (11/16) and 50 % (5/10) of small and moderate hernias. The prevalence of sliding hiatal hernias in the external control group was 22 % (44/200), significantly lower than the CT-WE and CTC cohorts' prevalence of 51 % (p < 0.0001) and 48.5 % (p < 0.0001). After applying the correction factors for the CT-WE and the CTC groups, the estimated residual prevalences (16 and 18.5 %, respectively) were much closer to that of the external control patients (p = 0.160 for CT-WE and p = 0.455 for CTC). CONCLUSIONS: We believe that incidental findings at CT-WE and CTC should be considered according to the clinical background, and that small sliding hiatal hernias should not be reported in patients with symptoms not related to reflux disease undergoing CT-WE or CTC: When encountering these findings, accurate anamnesis and review of medical history looking for GERD-related symptoms are essential, in order to address these patients to a correct diagnostic iter, taking advantage from more appropriate techniques such as endoscopy or functional techniques.

Extrusion of the medial meniscus in knee osteoarthritis assessed with a rotating clino-orthostatic permanent-magnet MRI scanner.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to assess the influence of weight-bearing on tibiofemoral osteoarthritis, including medial meniscal extrusion, by using a low-field (0.25 T) rotating clino-orthostatic permanent-magnet magnetic resonance (MR) scanner, and to analyse correlations of medial meniscal extrusion with the patient's Kellgren-Lawrence score, body mass index, and all the osteoarthritis features of the WORMS scoring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients (69.2% women and 30.8% men; mean age 67 ± 9.7 years) with medial tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis were prospectively enrolled and MR sequences were acquired in both clino- and orthostatic position. MR images were assessed by two independent radiologists, according to the WORMS scale. Medial meniscal extrusion was measured and its clino-orthostatic difference (∆MME) was calculated. RESULTS: Intra- and inter-observer agreement of the WORMS Global Score readings was high by Cohen's K test (>0.81). No significant clino-orthostatic changes in the scoring parameters of the medial tibiofemoral joint were shown by Wilcoxon's test. Medial meniscal extrusion measured on orthostatic images was significantly higher than that measured in clinostatic position (p < 0.0001). At univariate analysis, the Kellgren-Lawrence score, WORMS Global Score, cartilage loss, meniscal damage, and osteophytes were significantly correlated to ∆MME (p < 0.005). Using a multiple regression model, tibiofemoral cartilage loss was found to correlate independently with ∆MME (p = 0.0499). CONCLUSIONS: Medial meniscal extrusion, evaluated with an open-configuration, rotating MR scanner, increased from the clinostatic to the orthostatic position. ∆MME, a new meniscal parameter, correlated with several important features of medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis.

Breast density assessment using a 3T MRI system: comparison among different sequences.

PURPOSE: To compare MRI sequences for breast density measurements on a 3T MRI system using IDEAL (Iterative Decomposition of water and fat with Echo Asymmetry and Least squares estimation) as possible physiology-like reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI examination was performed in 48 consecutive patients (mean age 41, years; range, 35-67 years) on a 3.0T scanner and 46 were included. All (fertile) women, were examined between days 5 and 15 of their menstrual cycle. MRI protocol included: T1-turbo spin-echo (T1-tSE), T2-turbo spin-echo (T2-tSE), VIBRANT (Volume Imaging for Breast Assessment) before and after injection of contrast media and IDEAL. Breast density was calculated with semi-automated software. Statistical analysis was performed with non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Mean percentage of breast density calculated in each sequence was: T1-tSE = 56%; T2-tSE  = 52%; IDEAL FatOnly  = 55%; IDEAL WaterOnly  = 53%, VIBRANT = 55%. Significant differences were observed between T2-tSE and both T1-tSE (p<0.001), VIBRANT sequences (p = 0.009), T1-tSE and both IDEAL WaterOnly (p = 0.007) and IDEAL FatOnly (p = 0.047). Breast density percentage showed a positive linear correlation among different sequences: r ≥ 0.93. CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist between MRI sequences used to assess breast density percentage. T1-weighted sequences values were similar to IDEAL sequences.

Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging.

Given the increasingly important role of breast density as an independent risk factor for breast cancer, and the variable breast imaging tests that potentially provide measures for density. We compared breast tissue density on digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using semi-automated automated software. These three imaging modalities have not been previously directly compared for estimating breast tissue density. Following informed consent from all participating women, FFDM, DBT, and MRI were performed. Breast percentage density was calculated with semi-automated software, and compared, for all three imaging modalities. 48 patients (mean age, 41 years; range, 35-67 years) underwent FFDM, DBT, and MRI. Percent FFDM, DBT, and MRI breast density measures showed a positive linear correlation, (r = 0.95 for MRI and DBT, P < 0.0001; r = 0.97, P < 0.0001 for FFDM and DBT; r = 0.87 for FFDM and MRI). Linear regression analysis related to MRI and DBT had a high r (2) = 0.89 (95 % CI = 0.88-0.99, P < 0.001). FFDM overestimated breast density in 15.1 % in comparison to DBT and in 16.2 % in comparison to MRI, or conversely each of DBT and MRI underestimated density (relative to FFDM) by 15.1 or 16.2 %, respectively. Differences in percentage breast density between FFDM and DBT, and between FFDM and MRI, were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Differences in percentage breast density between DBT and MRI were not significant (P > 0.05). Breast density measures using FFDM, DBT, or MRI were generally well-correlated, although differences were noted between estimates when comparing FFDM and DBT, and for estimates comparing FFDM and MRI. No signficant differences in percentage density were observed when comparing DBT and MRI. Our work highlight that differences between FFDM, DBT, and MRI should be considered when measuring percentage breast density.

Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software.

OBJECTIVE: To compare breast density on digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software. METHODS: Following institutional approval and written informed consent from all participating women, both digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) were obtained. Breast percentage density was calculated with software on DBT and FFDM. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive patients (mean age, 51 years; range, 35-83 years) underwent both FFDM and DBT. Using a method based on the integral curve, breast density showed higher results on FFDM (68.1 ± 12.1 for FFDM and 51.9 ± 6.5 for DBT). FFDM overestimated breast density in 16.2% (P < 0.0001). Using a method based on maximum entropy thresholding, breast density showed higher results on FFDM (68.1 ± 12.1 for FFDM and 51.9 ± 6.5 for DBT). FFDM overestimated breast density in 11.4% (P < 0.0001). There was a good correlation among BI-RADS categories on a four-grade scale and the density evaluated with DBT and FFDM (r = 0.54, P < 0.01 and r = 0.44, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Breast density appeared to be significantly underestimated on digital breast tomosynthesis. KEY POINTS: Breast density is considered to be an independent risk factor for cancer Density can be assessed on full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis Objective automated estimation of breast density eliminates subjectivity Automated estimation is more accurate than BI-RADS quantitative evaluation Breast density may be significantly underestimated on digital breast tomosynthesis.

One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is at least equal to digital spot compression view (DSCV). METHODS: Following institutional approval and written informed consent, both DBT and DSCV were obtained in women with a screening abnormality. The diagnostic accuracy of DBT and DSCV was evaluated by two radiologists of varying experience (Reader1 and Reader2). RESULTS: 52 consecutive recalled women without calcification (mean age: 51 ± 12 years) underwent DSCV and DBT. Overall sensitivity was equal for both techniques (100% [95% CI, 91-100%] for DBT and 100% [95% CI, 91-100%] for DSCV). Overall specificity was higher for DBT (100% [95%CI, 91-100%]) than for DSCV (94% [95% CI, 91-100%]). Specificity for DSCV was higher for Reader1 (95% [95% CI, 91-100%]). Reader2 had lower values of specificity (92% [95% CI, 90-92%]). On DSCV, three and two false positives were recorded by Reader2 and Reader1, respectively. Overall, the area under the curve (AUC) was greater for DBT (AUC = 1) than for DSCV (AUC = 0.963). The mean difference between the two techniques was not significantly different (P = 0.43). CONCLUSION: In this dataset, diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis is at least equal to that of digital spot compression. KEY POINTS: • Digital spot compression views (DSCVs) are often needed in breast screening programmes. • Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) now offers an alternative to DSCV • In recalls without calcification, DBT was at least equally accurate as DSCVs • DBT has a lower mean glandular dose than DSCVs • Thus DBT has the potential to help reduce the recall rate.