Diagnostic Workup and Therapeutic Intervention of Hiatal Hernias Discovered as Incidental Findings on Computed Tomography.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography imaging routinely detects incidental findings; most research focuses on malignant findings. However, benign diseases such as hiatal hernia also require identification and follow-up. Natural language algorithms can help identify these non-malignant findings. METHODS: Imaging of adult trauma patients from 2010 to 2020 who underwent CT chest/abdomen/pelvis was evaluated using an open-source natural language processor to query for hiatal hernias. Patients who underwent subsequent imaging, endoscopy, fluoroscopy, or operation were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: 1087(10.6%) of 10 299 patients had incidental hiatal hernias: 812 small (74.7%) and 275 moderate/large (25.3%). 224 (20.7%) had subsequent imaging or endoscopic evaluation. Compared to those with small hernias, patients with moderate/large hernias were older (66.3 ± 19.4 vs 79.6 ± 12.6 years, P < .001) and predominantly female (403[49.6%] vs 199[72.4%], P < .001). Moderate/large hernias were not more likely to grow (small vs moderate/large: 13[7.6%] vs 8[15.1%], P = .102). Patients with moderate/large hernias were more likely to have an intervention or referral (small vs moderate/large: 6[3.5%] vs 7[13.2%], P = .008). No patients underwent elective or emergent hernia repair. Three patients had surgical referral; however, only one was seen by a surgeon. One patient death was associated with a large hiatal hernia. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a novel utilization of natural language processing to identify patients with incidental hiatal hernia in a large population, and found a 10.6% incidence with only 1.2%. (13/1087) of these receiving a referral for follow-up. While most incidental hiatal hernias are small, moderate/large and symptomatic hernias have high risk of loss-to-follow-up and need referral pipelines to improve patient outcomes.

The Early Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Lung, Colorectal, and Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVES: During the coronavirus-19 pandemic, experts recommended delaying routine cancer screening and modifying treatment strategies. We sought to understand the sequalae of these recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-center analysis of screening, diagnosis, and treatment of lung, colorectal, and breast cancer. Data was collected from our institutional cancer registry. Prepandemic (2016-2019) was compared with pandemic (2020) data. RESULTS: Three thousand three sixty one screening chest computed tomography scans (CTs), 35,917 colonoscopies, and 48,093 screening mammograms were performed. There was no difference in CTs [81.0 (SEM10.0) vs. 65.6 (SEM3.29), P =0.067] or mammograms [1017.0 (SEM171.8) vs. 809.4 (SEM56.41), P =0.177] in 2020 versus prepandemic. There were fewer colonoscopies in 2020 [651.4 (SEM103.5) vs. 758.91 (SEM11.79), P =0.043]. There was a decrease in cancer diagnoses per month in 2020 of lung [22.70 (SEM1.469) vs. 28.75 (SEM0.8216), P =0.003] and breast [38.56 (SEM6.133) vs. 51.82 (SEM1.257), P =0.001], but not colorectal [13.11 (SEM1.467) vs. 15.88 (SEM0.585), P =0.074] cancer. There was no change in stage at presentation for lung ( P =0.717), breast ( P =0.115), or colorectal cancer ( P =0.180). Lung had a shorter time-to-treatment in 2020 [38.92 days (SEM 2.48) vs. 66 (SEM1.46), P =0.002]. CONCLUSIONS: In 2020, there was no difference in screening studies for lung and breast cancer but there was a decrease in new diagnoses. Although there were fewer colonoscopies performed in 2020, there was no change in new colorectal cancer diagnoses. Despite changes in guidelines during the pandemic, the time-to-treatment for lung cancer was shorter and was unchanged for colorectal and breast cancer. These findings highlight the importance of continuing care for a vulnerable patient population despite a pandemic.