Bridging the Communication Gaps: A Prospective Single-Arm Pilot Study Testing the Feasibility of Interdisciplinary Radiotherapy Planning in Locally Advanced Lung Cancer.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The treatment of locally advanced lung cancer (LALC) with radiotherapy (RT) can be challenging. Multidisciplinary collaboration between radiologists and radiation oncologists (ROs) may optimize RT planning, reduce uncertainty in follow-up imaging interpretation, and improve outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective clinical treatment trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04844736), 37 patients receiving definitive RT for LALC, six attending ROs, and three thoracic radiologists were consented and enrolled across four treatment centers. Prior to RT plan finalization, representative computed tomography (CT) slices with overlaid outlines of preliminary irradiation targets were shared with the team of radiologists. The primary endpoint was to assess feasibility of receiving feedback no later than 4 business days of RT simulation on at least 50% of plans. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with lung cancer were enrolled, and 35 of 37 RT plans were reviewed. Of the 35 patients reviewed, mean age was 69 years. For 27 of 37 plans (73%), feedback was received within 4 or fewer days (interquartile range 3-4 days). Thirteen of 35 cases (37%) received feedback that the delineated target potentially did not include all sites suspicious for tumor involvement. In total, changes to the RT plan were recommended for over- or undercoverage in 16 of 35 cases (46%) and implemented in all cases. Radiology review resulted in no treatment delays and substantial changes to irradiated volumes: gross tumor volume, -1.9 to +96.1%; planning target volume, -37.5 to +116.5%. CONCLUSION: Interdisciplinary collaborative RT planning using a simplified workflow was feasible, produced no treatment delays, and prompted substantial changes in RT targets.

Multireader evaluation of radiologist performance for COVID-19 detection on emergency department chest radiographs.

BACKGROUND: Chest radiographs (CXR) are frequently used as a screening tool for patients with suspected COVID-19 infection pending reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results, despite recommendations against this. We evaluated radiologist performance for COVID-19 diagnosis on CXR at the time of patient presentation in the Emergency Department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We extracted RT-PCR results, clinical history, and CXRs of all patients from a single institution between March and June 2020. 984 RT-PCR positive and 1043 RT-PCR negative radiographs were reviewed by 10 emergency radiologists from 4 academic centers. 100 cases were read by all radiologists and 1927 cases by 2 radiologists. Each radiologist chose the single best label per case: Normal, COVID-19, Other - Infectious, Other - Noninfectious, Non-diagnostic, and Endotracheal Tube. Cases labeled with endotracheal tube (246) or non-diagnostic (54) were excluded. Remaining cases were analyzed for label distribution, clinical history, and inter-reader agreement. RESULTS: 1727 radiographs (732 RT-PCR positive, 995 RT-PCR negative) were included from 1594 patients (51.2% male, 48.8% female, age 59 ± 19 years). For 89 cases read by all readers, there was poor agreement for RT-PCR positive (Fleiss Score 0.36) and negative (Fleiss Score 0.46) exams. Agreement between two readers on 1638 cases was 54.2% (373/688) for RT-PCR positive cases and 71.4% (679/950) for negative cases. Agreement was highest for RT-PCR negative cases labeled as Normal (50.4%, n = 479). Reader performance did not improve with clinical history or time between CXR and RT-PCR result. CONCLUSION: At the time of presentation to the emergency department, emergency radiologist performance is non-specific for diagnosing COVID-19.

Management of Pulmonary Nodules in Oncologic Patients: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Cancer survivors are at higher risk than the general population for development of a new primary malignancy, most commonly lung cancer. Current lung cancer screening guidelines recommend low-dose chest CT for high-risk individuals, including patients with a history of cancer and a qualifying smoking history. However, major lung cancer screening trials have inconsistently included cancer survivors, and few studies have assessed management of lung nodules in this population. This narrative review highlights relevant literature and provides expert opinion for management of pulmonary nodules detected incidentally or by screening in oncologic patients. In patients with previously treated lung cancer, a new nodule most likely represents distant metastasis from the initial lung cancer or a second primary lung cancer; CT features such as nodule size and composition should guide decisions regarding biopsy, PET/CT, and CT surveillance. In patients with extrapulmonary cancers, nodule management requires individualized risk assessment; smoking is associated with increased odds of primary lung cancer, whereas specific primary cancer types are associated with increased odds of pulmonary metastasis. Nonneoplastic causes, such as infection, medication toxicity, and postradiation or postsurgical change, should also be considered. Future prospective studies are warranted to provide evidence-based data to assist clinical decision-making in this context.