ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to assess the performance of radiologists using a new software called "COVID-19 score" when performing chest radiography on patients potentially infected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Chest radiography (or chest X-ray, CXR) and CT are important for the imaging diagnosis of the coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19). CXR mobile devices are efficient during epidemies, because allow to reduce the risk of contagion and are easy to sanitize. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From February-April 2020, 14 radiologists retrospectively evaluated a pool of 312 chest X-ray exams to test a new software function for lung imaging analysis based on radiological features and graded on a three-point scale. This tool automatically generates a cumulative score (0-18). The intra- rater agreement (evaluated with Fleiss's method) and the average time for the compilation of the banner were calculated. RESULTS: Fourteen radiologists evaluated 312 chest radiographs of COVID-19 pneumonia suspected patients (80 males and 38 females) with an average age of 64, 47 years. The inter-rater agreement showed a Fleiss' kappa value of 0.53 and the intra-group agreement varied from Fleiss' Kappa value between 0.49 and 0.59, indicating a moderate agreement (considering as "moderate" ranges 0.4-0.6). The years of work experience were irrelevant. The average time for obtaining the result with the automatic software was between 7 s (e.g., zero COVID-19 score) and 21 s (e.g., with COVID-19 score from 6 to 12). CONCLUSION: The use of automatic software for the generation of a CXR "COVID-19 score" has proven to be simple, fast, and replicable. Implementing this tool with scores weighed on the number of lung pathological areas, a useful parameter for clinical monitoring could be available.
ABSTRACT
Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients derive benefit from chemotherapy, but options become limited after several prior chemotherapeutic regimens. Oral etoposide (VP-16) has previously been found to be clinically active in MBC patients in phase II trials. However, with increasing availability of other drugs, etoposide use has declined in spite of its unfavorable toxicity profile probably being overestimated. We therefore evaluated the clinical benefit and safety of oral etoposide in a population of MBC patients who had failed multiple regimens of currently used therapies. Sixty-six patients with MBC previously treated with a median of eight (range 2-13) regimens of therapy were eligible for the study. Patients received 50 mg/day oral etoposide in 20-day cycles with 1-week of rest. All patients were evaluated for clinical benefit (clinical benefit rate [CBR], complete response, partial response, and disease stabilization >24 weeks), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities. Median PFS was 4 months, CBR was 18% (overall response rate 4%), and median OS from the start of treatment was 11 months. Little clinically significant or high-grade toxicity were observed. No patients withdrew from treatment due to etoposide-induced toxicity. The favorable clinical response, low toxicity, and low cost of the drug suggest that etoposide is a viable option for patients with heavily pretreated MBC.