Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 95
Filter
1.
Radiology ; 310(2): e232558, 2024 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38411514

ABSTRACT

Members of the Fleischner Society have compiled a glossary of terms for thoracic imaging that replaces previous glossaries published in 1984, 1996, and 2008, respectively. The impetus to update the previous version arose from multiple considerations. These include an awareness that new terms and concepts have emerged, others have become obsolete, and the usage of some terms has either changed or become inconsistent to a degree that warranted a new definition. This latest glossary is focused on terms of clinical importance and on those whose meaning may be perceived as vague or ambiguous. As with previous versions, the aim of the present glossary is to establish standardization of terminology for thoracic radiology and, thereby, to facilitate communications between radiologists and clinicians. Moreover, the present glossary aims to contribute to a more stringent use of terminology, increasingly required for structured reporting and accurate searches in large databases. Compared with the previous version, the number of images (chest radiography and CT) in the current version has substantially increased. The authors hope that this will enhance its educational and practical value. All definitions and images are hyperlinked throughout the text. Click on each figure callout to view corresponding image. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorials by Bhalla and Powell in this issue.


Subject(s)
Communication , Diagnostic Imaging , Humans , Databases, Factual , Radiologists
2.
Radiol Clin North Am ; 60(6): 873-888, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36202475

ABSTRACT

The major role of imaging (CT) in usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP)/idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is in the initial diagnosis. We propose several modifications to existing guidelines to help improve the accuracy of this diagnosis and to enhance interobserver agreement. CT detects the common complications and associations that occur with UIP/IPF including acute exacerbation, lung cancer, and dendriform pulmonary ossification and is useful in informing prognosis based on baseline fibrosis severity. Serial CT imaging is a topic of great interest; it may identify disease progression before FVC decline or clinical change.


Subject(s)
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis , Disease Progression , Humans , Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis/diagnostic imaging , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Prognosis , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods
3.
Chest ; 159(5): 2072-2089, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33031828

ABSTRACT

Subsolid nodules are common on chest CT imaging and may be either benign or malignant. Their varied features and broad differential diagnoses present management challenges. Although subsolid nodules often represent lung adenocarcinomas, other possibilities are common and influence management. Practice guidelines exist for subsolid nodule management for both incidentally and screening-detected nodules, incorporating patient and nodule characteristics. This review highlights the similarities and differences among these algorithms, with the intent of providing a resource for comparison and aid in choosing management options.


Subject(s)
Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Algorithms , Diagnosis, Differential , Humans , Multiple Pulmonary Nodules/diagnostic imaging , Multiple Pulmonary Nodules/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Solitary Pulmonary Nodule/diagnostic imaging , Solitary Pulmonary Nodule/therapy
4.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 17(7): 845-854, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32485147

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario. RESULTS: Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Diagnostic Imaging/standards , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Multiple Pulmonary Nodules/diagnostic imaging , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Solitary Pulmonary Nodule/diagnostic imaging , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Chest ; 158(1): 406-415, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32335067

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario. RESULTS: Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections , Lung Neoplasms , Multiple Pulmonary Nodules/diagnosis , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Early Detection of Cancer/standards , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Neoplasm Staging , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Resource Allocation , Risk Assessment/methods , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Radiol Imaging Cancer ; 2(3): e204013, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33778716

ABSTRACT

Background: The risks from potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and resource reallocation that has occurred to combat the pandemic, have altered the balance of benefits and harms that informed current (pre-COVID-19) guideline recommendations for lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. Consensus statements were developed to guide clinicians managing lung cancer screening programs and patients with lung nodules during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: An expert panel of 24 members, including pulmonologists (n = 17), thoracic radiologists (n = 5), and thoracic surgeons (n = 2), was formed. The panel was provided with an overview of current evidence, summarized by recent guidelines related to lung cancer screening and lung nodule evaluation. The panel was convened by video teleconference to discuss and then vote on statements related to 12 common clinical scenarios. A predefined threshold of 70% of panel members voting agree or strongly agree was used to determine if there was a consensus for each statement. Items that may influence decisions were listed as notes to be considered for each scenario. Results: Twelve statements related to baseline and annual lung cancer screening (n = 2), surveillance of a previously detected lung nodule (n = 5), evaluation of intermediate and high-risk lung nodules (n = 4), and management of clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (n = 1) were developed and modified. All 12 statements were confirmed as consensus statements according to the voting results. The consensus statements provide guidance about situations in which it was believed to be appropriate to delay screening, defer surveillance imaging of lung nodules, and minimize nonurgent interventions during the evaluation of lung nodules and stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Conclusion: There was consensus that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to defer enrollment in lung cancer screening and modify the evaluation of lung nodules due to the added risks from potential exposure and the need for resource reallocation. There are multiple local, regional, and patient-related factors that should be considered when applying these statements to individual patient care.© 2020 RSNA; The American College of Chest Physicians, published by Elsevier Inc; and The American College of Radiology, published by Elsevier Inc.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Diagnostic Imaging/methods , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Chest ; 157(1): 119-141, 2020 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31356811

ABSTRACT

Areas of diminished lung density are frequently identified both on routine chest radiographs and chest CT examinations. Colloquially referred to as hyperlucent foci of lung, a broad range of underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms and differential diagnoses account for these changes. Despite this, the spectrum of etiologies can be categorized into underlying parenchymal, airway, and vascular-related entities. The purpose of this review is to provide a practical diagnostic algorithmic approach to pulmonary hyperlucencies incorporating clinical history and characteristic imaging patterns to narrow the differential.


Subject(s)
Lung Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Algorithms , Artifacts , Diagnosis, Differential , Humans , Lung Diseases/physiopathology
9.
Chest ; 157(3): 612-635, 2020 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31704148

ABSTRACT

We propose an algorithmic approach to the interpretation of diffuse lung disease on high-resolution CT. Following an initial review of pertinent lung anatomy, the following steps are included. Step 1: a preliminary review of available chest radiographs, including the "scanogram" obtained at the time of the CT examination. Step 2: a review of optimal methods of data acquisition and reconstruction, emphasizing the need for contiguous high-resolution images throughout the entire thorax. Step 3: initial uninterrupted scrolling of contiguous high-resolution images throughout the chest to establish the quality of examination as well as an overview of the presence and extent of disease. Step 4: determination of one of three predominant categories - primarily reticular disease, nodular disease, or diseases associated with diffuse alteration in lung density. Based on this determination, one of the three following Steps are followed: Step 5: evaluation of cases primarily involving diffuse lung reticulation; Step 6: evaluation of cases primarily resulting in diffuse lung nodules; and Step 7: evaluation of cases with diffuse alterations in lung density including those with diffusely diminished lung density vs those with heterogenous or diffusely increased lung density, respectively. It is anticipated that this algorithmic approach will substantially enhance initial interpretations of a wide range of pulmonary disease.


Subject(s)
Algorithms , Lung Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Multidetector Computed Tomography , Alveolitis, Extrinsic Allergic/diagnostic imaging , Amyloidosis/diagnostic imaging , Bronchiolitis/diagnostic imaging , Diagnosis, Differential , Humans , Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis/diagnostic imaging , Lung Diseases, Interstitial/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/secondary , Lymphoproliferative Disorders/diagnostic imaging , Pneumoconiosis/diagnostic imaging , Pulmonary Edema/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic , Sarcoidosis/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Vasculitis/diagnostic imaging
10.
Nat Med ; 25(8): 1319, 2019 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31253948

ABSTRACT

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

11.
Semin Ultrasound CT MR ; 40(3): 187-199, 2019 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31200868

ABSTRACT

Diseases that are predominantly peribronchovascular in distribution on computed tomography by definition involve the bronchi, adjacent vasculature, and associated lymphatics involving the central or axial lung interstitium. An understanding of diseases that can present with focal peribronchovascular findings is useful for establishing diagnoses and guiding patient management. This review will cover clinical and imaging features that may assist in differentiating amongst the various causes of primarily peribronchovascular disease.


Subject(s)
Bronchial Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Bronchi/diagnostic imaging , Humans
12.
Nat Med ; 25(6): 954-961, 2019 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31110349

ABSTRACT

With an estimated 160,000 deaths in 2018, lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the United States1. Lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography has been shown to reduce mortality by 20-43% and is now included in US screening guidelines1-6. Existing challenges include inter-grader variability and high false-positive and false-negative rates7-10. We propose a deep learning algorithm that uses a patient's current and prior computed tomography volumes to predict the risk of lung cancer. Our model achieves a state-of-the-art performance (94.4% area under the curve) on 6,716 National Lung Cancer Screening Trial cases, and performs similarly on an independent clinical validation set of 1,139 cases. We conducted two reader studies. When prior computed tomography imaging was not available, our model outperformed all six radiologists with absolute reductions of 11% in false positives and 5% in false negatives. Where prior computed tomography imaging was available, the model performance was on-par with the same radiologists. This creates an opportunity to optimize the screening process via computer assistance and automation. While the vast majority of patients remain unscreened, we show the potential for deep learning models to increase the accuracy, consistency and adoption of lung cancer screening worldwide.


Subject(s)
Deep Learning , Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted/methods , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/diagnosis , Mass Screening/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Algorithms , Databases, Factual , Deep Learning/statistics & numerical data , Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Imaging, Three-Dimensional/statistics & numerical data , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Neural Networks, Computer , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , United States
15.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 15(8): 1087-1096, 2018 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29941240

ABSTRACT

The ACR Incidental Findings Committee presents recommendations for managing incidentally detected mediastinal and cardiovascular findings found on CT. The Chest Subcommittee was composed of thoracic radiologists who developed the provided guidance. These recommendations represent a combination of current published evidence and expert opinion and were finalized by informal iterative consensus. The recommendations address the most commonly encountered mediastinal and cardiovascular incidental findings and are not intended to be a comprehensive review of all incidental findings associated with these compartments. Our goal is to improve the quality of care by providing guidance on how to manage incidentally detected thoracic findings.


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Incidental Findings , Mediastinal Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Humans
16.
17.
Acad Radiol ; 24(12): 1604-1611, 2017 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28844845

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to differentiate pathologically defined lepidic predominant lesions (LPL) from more invasive adenocarcinomas (INV) using three-dimensional (3D) volumetric density and first-order texture histogram analysis of surgically excised stage 1 lung adenocarcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was institutional review board approved and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Sixty-four cases of pathologically proven stage 1 lung adenocarcinoma surgically resected between September 2006 and October 2015, including LPL (n = 43) and INV (n = 21), were evaluated using high-resolution computed tomography. Quantitative measurements included nodule volume, percent solid volume (% solid), and first-order texture histogram analysis including skewness, kurtosis, entropy, and mean nodule attenuation within each histogram quartile. Binomial logistic regression models were used to identify the best set of parameters distinguishing LPL from INV. RESULTS: Univariate analysis of 3D volumetric density and histogram features was statistically significant between LPL and INV groups (P < .05). Accuracy of a binomial logistic model to discriminate LPL from INV based on size and % solid was 85.9%. With optimized probability cutoff, the model achieves 81% sensitivity, 76.7% specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.897 (95% confidence interval, 0.821-0.973). An additional model based on size and mean nodule attenuation of the third quartile (Hu_Q3) of the histogram achieved similar accuracy of 81.3% and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.877 (95% confidence interval, 0.790-0.964). CONCLUSIONS: Both 3D volumetric density and first-order texture analysis of stage 1 lung adenocarcinoma allow differentiation of LPL from more invasive adenocarcinoma with overall accuracy of 85.9%-81.3%, based on multivariate analyses of either size and % solid or size and Hu_Q3, respectively.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/diagnostic imaging , Image Enhancement , Imaging, Three-Dimensional , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Multidetector Computed Tomography/methods , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Adenocarcinoma of Lung , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Invasiveness , Retrospective Studies
18.
Radiology ; 285(2): 584-600, 2017 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28650738

ABSTRACT

These recommendations for measuring pulmonary nodules at computed tomography (CT) are a statement from the Fleischner Society and, as such, incorporate the opinions of a multidisciplinary international group of thoracic radiologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, pathologists, and other specialists. The recommendations address nodule size measurements at CT, which is a topic of importance, given that all available guidelines for nodule management are essentially based on nodule size or changes thereof. The recommendations are organized according to practical questions that commonly arise when nodules are measured in routine clinical practice and are, together with their answers, summarized in a table. The recommendations include technical requirements for accurate nodule measurement, directions on how to accurately measure the size of nodules at the workstation, and directions on how to report nodule size and changes in size. The recommendations are designed to provide practical advice based on the available evidence from the literature; however, areas of uncertainty are also discussed, and topics needing future research are highlighted. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.


Subject(s)
Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Multiple Pulmonary Nodules/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Humans , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Radiography, Thoracic
19.
Clin Cardiol ; 40(7): 498-502, 2017 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28300293

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcification as assessed by computed tomography (CT) is a validated predictor of cardiovascular risk, whether identified on a dedicated cardiac study or on a routine non-gated chest CT. The prevalence of incidentally detected coronary artery calcification on non-gated chest CT imaging and consistency of reporting have not been well characterized. HYPOTHESIS: Coronary calcification is present on chest CT in some patients not taking statin therapy and may be under-reported. METHODS: Non-gated chest CT images dated 1/1/2012 to 1/1/2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics and medical history were obtained from charts. Patients with known history of coronary revascularization and/or pacemaker/defibrillator were excluded. Two independent readers with cardiac CT expertise evaluated images for the presence and anatomical distribution of any coronary calcification, blinded to all clinical information including CT reports. Original clinical CT reports were subsequently reviewed. RESULTS: Coronary calcification was identified in 204/304 (68%) chest CTs. Patients with calcification were older and had more hyperlipidemia, smoking history, and known coronary artery disease. Of patients with calcification, 43% were on aspirin and 62% were on statin medication at the time of CT. Coronary calcification was identified in 69% of reports when present. CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of coronary calcification was found in non-gated chest CT scans performed for non-cardiac indications. In one-third, coronary calcification was not mentioned in the clinical report when actually present. In this population of patients with cardiac risk factors, standard reporting of the presence of coronary calcification may provide an opportunity for risk factor modification.


Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Disease/diagnosis , Coronary Vessels/diagnostic imaging , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Vascular Calcification/diagnosis , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Incidental Findings , Male , Middle Aged , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies
20.
Radiology ; 284(1): 228-243, 2017 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28240562

ABSTRACT

The Fleischner Society Guidelines for management of solid nodules were published in 2005, and separate guidelines for subsolid nodules were issued in 2013. Since then, new information has become available; therefore, the guidelines have been revised to reflect current thinking on nodule management. The revised guidelines incorporate several substantive changes that reflect current thinking on the management of small nodules. The minimum threshold size for routine follow-up has been increased, and recommended follow-up intervals are now given as a range rather than as a precise time period to give radiologists, clinicians, and patients greater discretion to accommodate individual risk factors and preferences. The guidelines for solid and subsolid nodules have been combined in one simplified table, and specific recommendations have been included for multiple nodules. These guidelines represent the consensus of the Fleischner Society, and as such, they incorporate the opinions of a multidisciplinary international group of thoracic radiologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, pathologists, and other specialists. Changes from the previous guidelines issued by the Fleischner Society are based on new data and accumulated experience. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article. An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on March 13, 2017.


Subject(s)
Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Multiple Pulmonary Nodules/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/standards , Adult , Aged , Humans , Incidental Findings , Lung Neoplasms/pathology , Middle Aged , Multiple Pulmonary Nodules/pathology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...