Search

Purpose: The emergence of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy fundamentally changed the management of individuals with relapsed and refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). However, real-world data have shown divergent outcomes for the approved products. The present study therefore set out to evaluate potential risk factors in a larger cohort. Methods: Our analysis set included 88 patients, treated in four German university hospitals and one Italian center, who had undergone 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (PET) before CAR T-cell therapy with tisagenlecleucel or axicabtagene ciloleucel. We first determined the predictive value of conventional risk factors, treatment lines, and response to bridging therapy for progression-free survival (PFS) through forward selection based on Cox regression. In a second step, the additive potential of two common PET parameters was assessed. Their optimal dichotomizing thresholds were calculated individually for each CAR T-cell product. Results: Extra-nodal involvement emerged as the most relevant of the conventional tumor and patient characteristics. Moreover, we found that inclusion of metabolic tumor volume (MTV) further improves outcome prediction. The hazard ratio for a PFS event was 1.68 per unit increase of our proposed risk score (95% confidence interval [1.20, 2.35], P = 0.003), which comprised both extra-nodal disease and lymphoma burden. While the most suitable MTV cut-off among patients receiving tisagenlecleucel was 11 mL, a markedly higher threshold of 259 mL showed optimal predictive performance in those undergoing axicabtagene ciloleucel treatment. Conclusion: Our analysis demonstrates that the presence of more than one extra-nodal lesion and higher MTV in LBCL are associated with inferior outcome after CAR T-cell treatment. Based on an assessment tool including these two factors, patients can be assigned to one of three risk groups. Importantly, as shown by our study, metabolic tumor burden might facilitate CAR T-cell product selection and reflect the individual need for bridging therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: CT perfusion (CTP) has been suggested to increase the rate of large vessel occlusion (LVO) detection in patients suspected of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) if used in addition to a standard diagnostic imaging regime of CT angiography (CTA) and non-contrast CT (NCCT). The aim of this study was to estimate the costs and health effects of additional CTP for endovascular treatment (EVT)–eligible occlusion detection using model-based analyses. Methods: In this Dutch, nationwide retrospective cohort study with model-based health economic evaluation, data from 701 EVT-treated patients with available CTP results were included (January 2018–March 2022; trialregister.nl:NL7974). We compared a cohort undergoing NCCT, CTA, and CTP (NCCT + CTA + CTP) with a generated counterfactual where NCCT and CTA (NCCT + CTA) was used for LVO detection. The NCCT + CTA strategy was simulated using diagnostic accuracy values and EVT effects from the literature. A Markov model was used to simulate 10-year follow-up. We adopted a healthcare payer perspective for costs in euros and health gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome was the net monetary benefit (NMB) at a willingness to pay of €80,000; secondary outcomes were the difference between LVO detection strategies in QALYs (ΔQALY) and costs (ΔCosts) per LVO patient. Results: We included 701 patients (median age: 72, IQR: [62–81]) years). Per LVO patient, CTP-based occlusion detection resulted in cost savings (ΔCosts median: € − 2671, IQR: [€ − 4721; € − 731]), a health gain (ΔQALY median: 0.073, IQR: [0.044; 0.104]), and a positive NMB (median: €8436, IQR: [5565; 11,876]) per LVO patient. Conclusion: CTP-based screening of suspected stroke patients for an endovascular treatment eligible large vessel occlusion was cost-effective. Clinical relevance statement.: Although CTP-based patient selection for endovascular treatment has been recently suggested to result in worse patient outcomes after ischemic stroke, an alternative CTP-based screening for endovascular treatable occlusions is cost-effective. Key Points: • Using CT perfusion to detect an endovascular treatment-eligible occlusions resulted in a health gain and cost savings during 10 years of follow-up. • Depending on the screening costs related to the number of patients needed to image with CT perfusion, cost savings could be considerable (median: € − 3857, IQR: [€ − 5907; € − 1916] per patient). • As the gain in quality adjusted life years was most affected by the sensitivity of CT perfusion-based occlusion detection, additional studies for the diagnostic accuracy of CT perfusion for occlusion detection are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) can be administered outpatient yet requires management of potential side effects such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). The pre-infusion tumor burden is associated with CRS, yet there is no data on the relevance of pre-infusion tumor growth rate (TGR). Our objective was to investigate TGR for the occurrence and severity of CRS and ICANS. Consecutive patients with available pre-baseline and baseline (BL) imaging before CART were included. TGR was determined as both absolute (abs) and percentage change (%) of Lugano criteria-based tumor burden in relation to days between exams. CRS and ICANS were graded according to ASTCT consensus criteria. Clinical metadata was collected including the international prognostic index (IPI), patient age, ECOG performance status, and LDH. Sixty-two patients were included (median age: 62 years, 40% female). The median pre-BL TGR [abs] and pre-BL TGR [%] was 7.5 mm2/d and 30.9%/d. Pre-BL TGR [abs] and pre-BL TGR [%] displayed a very weak positive correlation with the grade of CRS (r[abs] = 0.14 and r[%] = 0.13) and no correlation with ICANS (r[abs] = − 0.06 and r[%] = − 0.07). There was a weak positive correlation between grade of CRS and grade of ICANS (r = 0.35; p = 0.005) whereas there was no significant correlation of CRS or ICANS to any other of the examined parameters. The pre-infusion TGR before CART was weakly associated with the occurrence of CRS, but not the severity, whereas there were no significant differences in the prediction of ICANS. There was no added information when compared to pre-infusion tumor burden alone. Outpatient planning and toxicity management should not be influenced by the pre-infusion TGR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess radiologists’ current use of, and opinions on, structured reporting (SR) in oncologic imaging, and to provide recommendations for a structured report template.An online survey with 28 questions was sent to European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. The questionnaire had four main parts: (1) participant information, e.g., country, workplace, experience, and current SR use; (2) SR design, e.g., numbers of sections and fields, and template use; (3) clinical impact of SR, e.g., on report quality and length, workload, and communication with clinicians; and (4) preferences for an oncology-focused structured CT report. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients.A total of 200 radiologists from 51 countries completed the survey: 57.0% currently utilized SR (57%), with a lower proportion within than outside of Europe (51.0 vs. 72.7%; p = 0.006). Among SR users, the majority observed markedly increased report quality (62.3%) and easier comparison to previous exams (53.5%), a slightly lower error rate (50.9%), and fewer calls/emails by clinicians (78.9%) due to SR. The perceived impact of SR on communication with clinicians (i.e., frequency of calls/emails) differed with radiologists’ experience (p < 0.001), and experience also showed low but significant correlations with communication with clinicians (r = − 0.27, p = 0.003), report quality (r = 0.19, p = 0.043), and error rate (r = − 0.22, p = 0.016). Template use also affected the perceived impact of SR on report quality (p = 0.036).Radiologists regard SR in oncologic imaging favorably, with perceived positive effects on report quality, error rate, comparison of serial exams, and communication with clinicians.Radiologists believe that structured reporting in oncologic imaging improves report quality, decreases the error rate, and enables better communication with clinicians. Implementation of structured reporting in Europe is currently below the international level and needs society endorsement.• The majority of oncologic imaging specialists (57% overall; 51% in Europe) use structured reporting in clinical practice.• The vast majority of oncologic imaging specialists use templates (92.1%), which are typically cancer-specific (76.2%).• Structured reporting is perceived to markedly improve report quality, communication with clinicians, and comparison to prior scans.Materials and methods: To assess radiologists’ current use of, and opinions on, structured reporting (SR) in oncologic imaging, and to provide recommendations for a structured report template.An online survey with 28 questions was sent to European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. The questionnaire had four main parts: (1) participant information, e.g., country, workplace, experience, and current SR use; (2) SR design, e.g., numbers of sections and fields, and template use; (3) clinical impact of SR, e.g., on report quality and length, workload, and communication with clinicians; and (4) preferences for an oncology-focused structured CT report. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients.A total of 200 radiologists from 51 countries completed the survey: 57.0% currently utilized SR (57%), with a lower proportion within than outside of Europe (51.0 vs. 72.7%; p = 0.006). Among SR users, the majority observed markedly increased report quality (62.3%) and easier comparison to previous exams (53.5%), a slightly lower error rate (50.9%), and fewer calls/emails by clinicians (78.9%) due to SR. The perceived impact of SR on communication with clinicians (i.e., frequency of calls/emails) differed with radiologists’ experience (p < 0.001), and experience also showed low but significant correlations with communication with clinicians (r = − 0.27, p = 0.003), report quality (r = 0.19, p = 0.043), and error rate (r = − 0.22, p = 0.016). Template use also affected the perceived impact of SR on report quality (p = 0.036).Radiologists regard SR in oncologic imaging favorably, with perceived positive effects on report quality, error rate, comparison of serial exams, and communication with clinicians.Radiologists believe that structured reporting in oncologic imaging improves report quality, decreases the error rate, and enables better communication with clinicians. Implementation of structured reporting in Europe is currently below the international level and needs society endorsement.• The majority of oncologic imaging specialists (57% overall; 51% in Europe) use structured reporting in clinical practice.• The vast majority of oncologic imaging specialists use templates (92.1%), which are typically cancer-specific (76.2%).• Structured reporting is perceived to markedly improve report quality, communication with clinicians, and comparison to prior scans.Results: To assess radiologists’ current use of, and opinions on, structured reporting (SR) in oncologic imaging, and to provide recommendations for a structured report template.An online survey with 28 questions was sent to European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. The questionnaire had four main parts: (1) participant information, e.g., country, workplace, experience, and current SR use; (2) SR design, e.g., numbers of sections and fields, and template use; (3) clinical impact of SR, e.g., on report quality and length, workload, and communication with clinicians; and (4) preferences for an oncology-focused structured CT report. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients.A total of 200 radiologists from 51 countries completed the survey: 57.0% currently utilized SR (57%), with a lower proportion within than outside of Europe (51.0 vs. 72.7%; p = 0.006). Among SR users, the majority observed markedly increased report quality (62.3%) and easier comparison to previous exams (53.5%), a slightly lower error rate (50.9%), and fewer calls/emails by clinicians (78.9%) due to SR. The perceived impact of SR on communication with clinicians (i.e., frequency of calls/emails) differed with radiologists’ experience (p < 0.001), and experience also showed low but significant correlations with communication with clinicians (r = − 0.27, p = 0.003), report quality (r = 0.19, p = 0.043), and error rate (r = − 0.22, p = 0.016). Template use also affected the perceived impact of SR on report quality (p = 0.036).Radiologists regard SR in oncologic imaging favorably, with perceived positive effects on report quality, error rate, comparison of serial exams, and communication with clinicians.Radiologists believe that structured reporting in oncologic imaging improves report quality, decreases the error rate, and enables better communication with clinicians. Implementation of structured reporting in Europe is currently below the international level and needs society endorsement.• The majority of oncologic imaging specialists (57% overall; 51% in Europe) use structured reporting in clinical practice.• The vast majority of oncologic imaging specialists use templates (92.1%), which are typically cancer-specific (76.2%).• Structured reporting is perceived to markedly improve report quality, communication with clinicians, and comparison to prior scans.Conclusion: To assess radiologists’ current use of, and opinions on, structured reporting (SR) in oncologic imaging, and to provide recommendations for a structured report template.An online survey with 28 questions was sent to European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. The questionnaire had four main parts: (1) participant information, e.g., country, workplace, experience, and current SR use; (2) SR design, e.g., numbers of sections and fields, and template use; (3) clinical impact of SR, e.g., on report quality and length, workload, and communication with clinicians; and (4) preferences for an oncology-focused structured CT report. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients.A total of 200 radiologists from 51 countries completed the survey: 57.0% currently utilized SR (57%), with a lower proportion within than outside of Europe (51.0 vs. 72.7%; p = 0.006). Among SR users, the majority observed markedly increased report quality (62.3%) and easier comparison to previous exams (53.5%), a slightly lower error rate (50.9%), and fewer calls/emails by clinicians (78.9%) due to SR. The perceived impact of SR on communication with clinicians (i.e., frequency of calls/emails) differed with radiologists’ experience (p < 0.001), and experience also showed low but significant correlations with communication with clinicians (r = − 0.27, p = 0.003), report quality (r = 0.19, p = 0.043), and error rate (r = − 0.22, p = 0.016). Template use also affected the perceived impact of SR on report quality (p = 0.036).Radiologists regard SR in oncologic imaging favorably, with perceived positive effects on report quality, error rate, comparison of serial exams, and communication with clinicians.Radiologists believe that structured reporting in oncologic imaging improves report quality, decreases the error rate, and enables better communication with clinicians. Implementation of structured reporting in Europe is currently below the international level and needs society endorsement.• The majority of oncologic imaging specialists (57% overall; 51% in Europe) use structured reporting in clinical practice.• The vast majority of oncologic imaging specialists use templates (92.1%), which are typically cancer-specific (76.2%).• Structured reporting is perceived to markedly improve report quality, communication with clinicians, and comparison to prior scans.Clinical relevance statement: To assess radiologists’ current use of, and opinions on, structured reporting (SR) in oncologic imaging, and to provide recommendations for a structured report template.An online survey with 28 questions was sent to European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. The questionnaire had four main parts: (1) participant information, e.g., country, workplace, experience, and current SR use; (2) SR design, e.g., numbers of sections and fields, and template use; (3) clinical impact of SR, e.g., on report quality and length, workload, and communication with clinicians; and (4) preferences for an oncology-focused structured CT report. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients.A total of 200 radiologists from 51 countries completed the survey: 57.0% currently utilized SR (57%), with a lower proportion within than outside of Europe (51.0 vs. 72.7%; p = 0.006). Among SR users, the majority observed markedly increased report quality (62.3%) and easier comparison to previous exams (53.5%), a slightly lower error rate (50.9%), and fewer calls/emails by clinicians (78.9%) due to SR. The perceived impact of SR on communication with clinicians (i.e., frequency of calls/emails) differed with radiologists’ experience (p < 0.001), and experience also showed low but significant correlations with communication with clinicians (r = − 0.27, p = 0.003), report quality (r = 0.19, p = 0.043), and error rate (r = − 0.22, p = 0.016). Template use also affected the perceived impact of SR on report quality (p = 0.036).Radiologists regard SR in oncologic imaging favorably, with perceived positive effects on report quality, error rate, comparison of serial exams, and communication with clinicians.Radiologists believe that structured reporting in oncologic imaging improves report quality, decreases the error rate, and enables better communication with clinicians. Implementation of structured reporting in Europe is currently below the international level and needs society endorsement.• The majority of oncologic imaging specialists (57% overall; 51% in Europe) use structured reporting in clinical practice.• The vast majority of oncologic imaging specialists use templates (92.1%), which are typically cancer-specific (76.2%).• Structured reporting is perceived to markedly improve report quality, communication with clinicians, and comparison to prior scans.Key Points: To assess radiologists’ current use of, and opinions on, structured reporting (SR) in oncologic imaging, and to provide recommendations for a structured report template.An online survey with 28 questions was sent to European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. The questionnaire had four main parts: (1) participant information, e.g., country, workplace, experience, and current SR use; (2) SR design, e.g., numbers of sections and fields, and template use; (3) clinical impact of SR, e.g., on report quality and length, workload, and communication with clinicians; and (4) preferences for an oncology-focused structured CT report. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients.A total of 200 radiologists from 51 countries completed the survey: 57.0% currently utilized SR (57%), with a lower proportion within than outside of Europe (51.0 vs. 72.7%; p = 0.006). Among SR users, the majority observed markedly increased report quality (62.3%) and easier comparison to previous exams (53.5%), a slightly lower error rate (50.9%), and fewer calls/emails by clinicians (78.9%) due to SR. The perceived impact of SR on communication with clinicians (i.e., frequency of calls/emails) differed with radiologists’ experience (p < 0.001), and experience also showed low but significant correlations with communication with clinicians (r = − 0.27, p = 0.003), report quality (r = 0.19, p = 0.043), and error rate (r = − 0.22, p = 0.016). Template use also affected the perceived impact of SR on report quality (p = 0.036).Radiologists regard SR in oncologic imaging favorably, with perceived positive effects on report quality, error rate, comparison of serial exams, and communication with clinicians.Radiologists believe that structured reporting in oncologic imaging improves report quality, decreases the error rate, and enables better communication with clinicians. Implementation of structured reporting in Europe is currently below the international level and needs society endorsement.• The majority of oncologic imaging specialists (57% overall; 51% in Europe) use structured reporting in clinical practice.• The vast majority of oncologic imaging specialists use templates (92.1%), which are typically cancer-specific (76.2%).• Structured reporting is perceived to markedly improve report quality, communication with clinicians, and comparison to prior scans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]