Search

Purpose: The study aimed to compare the incidence of interstitial pneumonia on [18F]-FDG PET/CT scans between two 6-month periods: (a) the COVID-19 pandemic peak and (b) control period. Secondly, we compared the incidence of interstitial pneumonia on [18F]-FDG PET/CT and epidemiological data from the regional registry of COVID-19 cases. Additionally, imaging findings and the intensity of [18F]-FDG PET/CT uptake in terms of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) were compared. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed [18F]-FDG PET/CT scans performed in cancer patients referred to nuclear medicine of Humanitas Gavazzeni in Bergamo from December 2019 to May 2020 and from December 2018 to May 2019. The per month incidence of interstitial pneumonia at imaging and the epidemiological data were assessed. To evaluate the differences between the two symmetric groups (period of COVID-19 pandemic and control), the stratified Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test was used. Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test and t test or Wilcoxon test were performed to compare the distributions of categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Results: Overall, 1298 patients were included in the study. The two cohorts—COVID-19 pandemic (n= 575) and control (n= 723)—did not statistically differ in terms of age, disease, or scan indication (p> 0.05). Signs of interstitial pneumonia were observed in 24 (4.2%) and 14 patients (1.9%) in the COVID-19 period and the control period, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p= 0.013). The level of statistical significance improved further when the period from January to May was considered, with a peak in March (7/83 patients, 8.4% vs 3/134 patients, 2.2%, p= 0.001). The curve of interstitial pneumonia diagnosis overlapped with the COVID-19 incidence in the area of Lombardy (Spearman correlation index was equal to 1). Imaging data did not differ among the two cohorts. Conclusions: Significant increase of interstitial lung alterations at [18F]-FDG PET/CT has been demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the incidence curve of imaging abnormalities resulted in resembling the epidemiological data of the general population. These data support the rationale to adopt [18F]-FDG PET/CT as sentinel modality to identify suspicious COVID-19 cases to be referred for additional confirmatory testing. Nuclear medicine physicians and staff should continue active surveillance of interstitial pneumonia findings, especially when new infection peak is expected.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused the relocation of huge financial resources to departments dedicated to infected patients, at the expense of those suffering from other pathologies. Aim To compare clinical features and outcomes in COVID-19 pneumonia and non-COVID-19 pneumonia patients. Patients and methods 53 patients (35 males, mean age 61.5 years) with COVID-19 pneumonia and 50 patients (32 males, mean age 72.7 years) with non-COVID-19 pneumonia, consecutively admitted between March and May 2020 were included. Clinical, laboratory and radiological data at admission were analyzed. Duration of hospitalization and mortality rates were evaluated. Results Among the non-COVID patients, mean age, presence of comorbidities (neurological diseases, chronic kidney disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), Charlson Comorbidity Index and risk factors (tobacco use and protracted length of stay in geriatric healthcare facilities) were higher than in COVID patients. The non-COVID-19 pneumonia group showed a higher (24% vs. 17%), although not statistically significant in-hospital mortality rate; the average duration of hospitalization was longer for COVID patients (30 vs. 9 days, p = .0001). Conclusions In the early stages of the COVID pandemic, our centre noted no statistical difference in unadjusted in-hospital mortality between COVID and non-COVID patients. Non-COVID patients had higher Charlson Comorbidity Scores, reflecting a greater disease burden in this population.Key MessagesIn March 2020, the COVID-19 disease was declared a pandemic, with enormous consequences for the organization of health systems and in terms of human lives; this has caused the relocation of huge financial resources to departments dedicated to infected patients, at the expense of those suffering from other pathologies.Few published reports have compared COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pneumonia. In our study, performed in a geographic area with a low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, we found few statistically significant differences in terms of clinical characteristics between the two groups analyzed.In the early stages of the COVID pandemic, our centre noted no statistical difference in unadjusted in-hospital mortality between COVID and non-COVID patients. Non-COVID patients had higher Charlson Comorbidity Scores, reflecting a greater disease burden in this population

Introduction Ground-glass nodules may be the expression of benign conditions, pre-invasive lesions or malignancies. The aim of our study was to evaluate the capability of chest digital tomosynthesis (DTS) in detecting pulmonary ground-glass opacities (GGOs). Methods An anthropomorphic chest phantom and synthetic nodules were used to simulate pulmonary ground-glass nodules. The nodules were positioned in 3 different regions (apex, hilum and basal); then the phantom was scanned by multi-detector CT (MDCT) and DTS. For each set (nodule-free phantom, nodule in apical zone, nodule in hilar zone, nodule in basal zone) seven different scans (n = 28) were performed varying the following technical parameters: Cu-filter (0.1–0.3 mm), dose rateo (10–25) and X-ray tube voltage (105–125 kVp). Two radiologists in consensus evaluated the DTS images and provided in agreement a visual score: 1 for unidentifiable nodules, 2 for poorly identifiable nodules, 3 for nodules identifiable with fair certainty, 4 for nodules identifiable with absolute certainty. Results Increasing the dose rateo from 10 to 15, GGOs located in the apex and in the basal zone were better identified (from a score = 2 to a score = 3). GGOs located in the hilar zone were not visible even with a higher dose rate. Intermediate density GGOs had a good visibility score (score = 3) and it did not improve by varying technical parameters. A progressive increase of voltage (from 105 kVp to 125 kVp) did not provide a better nodule visibility. Conclusion DTS with optimized technical parameters can identify GGOs, in particular those with a diameter greater than 10 mm. Implications for practice DTS could have a role in the follow-up of patients with known GGOs identified in lung apex or base region.

To evaluate the role of ultrasound in detecting and defining ground-glass opacities (GGOs) in surgical specimens of patients undergoing thoracoscopic diagnostic resection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of ultrasound in detecting and defining ground-glass opacities (GGOs) in surgical specimens of patients undergoing thoracoscopic diagnostic resection.METHODS: We performed an observational single-centre study of all consecutive patients undergoing thoracoscopic diagnostic resection of GGOs. In each patient, the specimen was scanned with ultrasound; then, a needle was inserted into the lesion to facilitate its detection by the pathologist. We evaluated the rate of detection with ultrasound, compared the size and depth measurements of the lesions as determined from ultrasound scans with those from the histological specimens and correlated the ultrasound findings with the histological subtypes of adenocarcinomas.RESULTS: We reviewed 17 tissue samples. The final diagnoses were 1 (6%) atypical adenomatous hyperplasia, 5 (29%) adenocarcinomas in situ, 4 (24%) minimally invasive adenocarcinomas and 7 (41%) invasive adenocarcinomas. All tumours were successfully identified using ultrasound. The size (P = 0.87) and depth (P = 0.25) of the lesions measured with ultrasound did not significantly differ from the measurements obtained from the histological specimens. In addition, ultrasound size (r = 0.945; P < 0.0001) and depth (r = 0.588; P = 0.013) were significantly correlated with the pathologicalmeasurements. All lesions with hyperechoic findings (n = 6) were pure GGOs, whereas lesions withmixed echoic (n= 11) patterns were mixed GGOs. We were unable to differentiate the histological subtypes of adenocarcinomas using the ultrasound scans.CONCLUSIONS: Detection of GGOs on ultrasound scans is feasible, but differentiation of the histological subtypes of adenocarcinomas is not possible. The next step is to evaluate the intraoperative reproducibility of our results.