British Society Of Thoracic Imaging Research Articles

The Role of the Computed Tomography (CT) Thorax in the Diagnosis of COVID-19 for Patients Presenting with Acute Surgical Emergencies. A Single Institute Experience.

The current Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a huge impact on emergency surgical services in the UK. The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) published guidelines about COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020 to aid decision making for the surgeons. These guidelines recommended that all patients requiring urgent surgery should have reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and/or computed tomography (CT) thorax pre-operatively. However, it is currently unclear whether the use of CT thorax is a sensitive and specific diagnostic test. The objective of this study was to find out whether CT thorax is a reliable and accurate test in the diagnosis of COVID-19 compared to RT-PCR. This is particularly important in surgical patients where there is no time to wait for RT-PCR results. A prospective cohort study of patients presented with acute surgical emergencies at a University Teaching Hospital was conducted. Data was collected from March 23, to May 15, 2020, during the peak of the crisis in the UK. All adult patients presented with operable general surgical emergencies were considered eligible. Another group of patients, admitted with acute medical emergencies but with suspected COVID-19 infection, was used for comparison. Data was manually collected, and sensitivity, specificity and predictive value were calculated using the MedCalc statistical software version 19.2.6. Standard reporting for COVID-19 infection for CT chest based on guidelines from British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) and Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) was used. Patients who had their CT thorax reported as typical or classic of COVID 19 (high probability) were treated as infected cases with extra precautions in the wards and surgical theatres as suggested by health and safety executive (HSE). These patients had serial RT-PCR during their admissions or in the post-operative phase, if the first swab was negative. For the study, 259 patients were considered eligible for inclusion from both groups. Patients admitted for acute surgical emergencies were treated according to RCS guidelines and subjected to RT-PCR test and/or CT scan of the thorax. There were 207 patients with high clinical suspicion of COVID-19. Of those 207 patients, 77 patients had CT thorax with radiographic features consistent with COVID-19 pneumonia. However, only 40 patients had a positive RT-PCR result. CT thorax was normal in 130 patients, out of which 29 patients were found to have COVID-19 diagnosis after swab test. Sensitivity of CT scan to diagnose COVID-19 infection was found to be 58% (95% CI; 45.48% to 69.76%) whilst specificity was 73% (95% CI; 64.99% to 80.37%) with a negative predictive value of 77.69% (95% CI; 72.17% to 82.39%). CT scan was found to be a reliable tool in the diagnosis of COVID-19. With a negative predictive value of up to 82.4%, CT thorax can play an important role to help surgeons in their decision making for asymptomatic suspected cases of COVID-19. However, over-reliance on CT scan which also has a high false positive rate for diagnosis of COVID-19 infections can lead to overtreatment, overuse of resources and delays in decision-making process. Hence, results should be interpreted with caution and correlated with clinical presentation and swab test results.

Corticosteroid injections during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience from a UK centre.

AimsTo describe the incidence of adverse clinical outcomes related to COVID-19 infection following corticosteroid injections (CSI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. To describe the incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, positive SARS-COV2 IgG antibody testing or positive imaging findings following CSI at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA retrospective observational study was undertaken of consecutive patients who had CSI in our local hospitals between 1 February and 30June 2020. Electronic patient medical records (EPR) and radiology information system (RIS) database were reviewed. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, SARS-COV2 IgG antibody testing, radiological investigations, patient management, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Lung findings were categorized according to the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) guidelines. Reference was made to the incidence of lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in our region.ResultsOverall, 1,656 lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases were identified in our upper tier local authority (UTLA), a rate of 306.6 per 100,000, as of 30June 2020. A total of 504 CSI injections were performed on 443 patients between 1 February and 30June 2020. A total of 11 RT-PCR tests were performed on nine patients (2% of those who had CSI), all of which were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and five patients (1.1%) received an SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody test, of which 2 (0.5%) were positive consistent with prior COVID-19 infection, however both patients were asymptomatic. Seven patients (1.6%) had radiological investigations for respiratory symptoms. One patient with indeterminate ground glass change was identified.ConclusionThe incidence of positive COVID-19 infection following corticosteroid injections was very low in our cohort and no adverse clinical outcomes related to COVID-19 infection following CSI were identified. Our findings are consistent with CSI likely being low risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this small observational study are supportive of the current multi-society guidelines regarding the judicious use of CSI.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:605–611.

Comparison of chest X-ray interpretation by Emergency Department clinicians and radiologists in suspected COVID-19 infection: a retrospective cohort study.

Objectives:We describe the inter-rater agreement between Emergency Department (ED) clinicians and reporting radiologists in the interpretation of chest X-rays (CXRs) in patients presenting to ED with suspected COVID-19.Methods:We undertook a retrospective cohort study of patients with suspected COVID-19. We compared ED clinicians’ and radiologists’ interpretation of the CXRs according to British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) guidelines, using the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC area).Results:CXRs of 152 cases with suspected COVID-19 infection were included. Sensitivity and specificity for ‘classic’ COVID-19 CXR findings reported by ED clinician was 84 and 83%, respectively, with a ROC area of 0.84 (95%CI 0.77 to 0.90). Accuracy improved with ED clinicians’ experience, with ROC areas of 0.73 (95%CI 0.45 to 1.00), 0.81 (95%CI 0.73 to 0.89), 1.00 (95%CI 1.00 to 1.00) and 0.90 (95%CI 0.70 to 1.00) for foundation year doctors, senior house officers, higher speciality trainees and ED consultants, respectively (p < 0.001).Conclusions:ED clinicians demonstrated moderate inter-rater agreement with reporting radiologists according to the BSTI COVID-19 classifications. The improvement in accuracy with ED clinician experience suggests training of junior ED clinicians in the interpretation of COVID-19 related CXRs might be beneficial. Large-scale survey studies might be useful in the further evaluation of this topic.Advances in knowledge:This is the first study to examine inter-rater agreement between ED clinicians and radiologists in regards to COVID-19 CXR interpretation.Further service configurations such as 24-hr hot reporting of CXRs can be guided by these data, as well as an ongoing, nationwide follow-up study.

Chest X-ray findings in COVID-19: A Pictorial Review

Introduction: Chest X-ray and Computed tomography(CT) of chest play an important role in the diagnosis and management of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). As chest CT may not be readily available in most clinical setups X-ray Chest plays a pivotal role in such clinical scenarios and an irreplaceable initial radiological investigation of these patients.&#x0D; Objective: The objective of this article is to identify and elaborate the commonest appearances and patterns of lung changes on Chest X rays in COVID-19 positive patients confirmed on RT-PCR COVID testing.&#x0D; Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study of Chest X-ray findings of 294 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted across 3 hospitals (Rawalpindi institute of urology (RIU), Benazir Bhutto Hospital (BBH) and Holy Family Hospital (HFH)) from March 30th, 2020 till April 30th, 2020. CXR was analyzed for consolidation patches, ground-glass opacification (GGO), multi-lobe involvement, bilateral distribution, and pleural fluid. The chest X-ray with positive findings was graded into mild, moderate, and severe grades using BSTI (British Society of Thoracic imaging) guidelines.&#x0D; Results: Mean age of study patients was 45.5 years. Among the study population 230 (78.2 %) were male and 64 (21.8%) female. On baseline chest X rays, consolidations were the commonest finding (n=84, 28.5%), followed by ground-glass opacity (n=17, 5.7 %). The more common locations were peripheral and lower zones, and the majority had bilateral lung involvement (Table 1). Pleural effusions were found in only 5 of the study patients. Among these patients, 187 (63.6%) had an initial normal chest X-ray. Moreover, 35, 34, and 38patients had mild, moderate, and severe diseases respectively.&#x0D; Conclusion: Chest X-ray is an important initial radiological investigation for COVID 19 patients and plays an important role in the management during the course of the disease.

Reporting radiographers' interpretation and use of the British Society of Thoracic Imaging's coding system when reporting COVID-19 chest x-rays

IntroductionThe United Kingdom (UK) has experienced one of the worst initial waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical signs help guide initial diagnosis, though definitive diagnosis is made using the laboratory technique reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The chest x-ray (CXR) is used as the primary imaging investigation in the United Kingdom (UK) for patients with suspected COVID-19. In some hospitals these CXRs may be reported by a radiographer. MethodsRetrospective review of CXR reports by radiographers for suspected COVID-19 patients attending the Emergency Department (ED) of a hospital in the UK. Interpretation and use of the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) coding system was assessed. Report description and code use were cross-checked. Report and code usage were checked against the RT-PCR result to determine accuracy. Report availability was checked against the availability of the RT-PCR result. A confusion matrix was utilised to determine performance. The data were analysed manually using Excel. ResultsSample size was 320 patients; 54.1% male patients (n = 173), 45.9% female patients (n = 147). The correct code matched report descriptions in 316 of the 320 cases (98.8%). In 299 of the 320 cases (93.4%), the reports were available before the RT-PCR swab result. CXR sensitivity for detecting COVID-19 was 85% compared to 93% for the initial RT-PCR. ConclusionReporting radiographers can adequately utilise and apply the BSTI classification system when reporting COVID-19 CXRs. They can recognise the classic CXR appearances of COVID-19 and those with normal appearances. Future best practice includes checking laboratory results when reporting CXRs with ambiguous appearances. Implications for practiceUtilisation of reporting radiographers to report CXRs in any future respiratory pandemic should be considered a service-enabling development.

Chest CT screening for COVID-19 in elective and emergency surgical patients: experience from a UK tertiary centre

AIMTo determine the incidence of possible COVID-19-related lung changes on preoperative screening computed tomography (CT) for COVID-19 and how their findings influenced decision-making. To also to determine whether the patients were managed as COVID-19 patients after their imaging findings, and the proportion who had SARS-CoV2 reverse transcriptionpolymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.MATERIALS AND METHODSA retrospective study was undertaken of consecutive patients having imaging prior to urgent elective surgery (n=156) or acute abdominal imaging (n=283). Lung findings were categorised according to the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) guidelines. RT-PCR testing, management, and outcomes were determined from the electronic patient records.RESULTS3% (13/439) of CT examinations demonstrated findings of classic/probable COVID-19 pneumonia, whilst 4% (19/439) had findings indeterminate for COVID-19. Of the total cohort, 1.6% (7/439) subsequently had confirmed RT-PCR-positive COVID-19. Importantly, all the patients with a normal chest or alternative diagnoses on CT who had PCR testing within the next 7 days, had a negative RT-PCR (92/407). There was a change in surgical outcome in 6% (10/156) of the elective surgical cohort with no change to surgical management was demonstrated in the acute abdominal emergency cohort requiring surgery (2/283).CONCLUSIONThere was a 7% (32/439) incidence of potential COVID-19-related lung changes in patients having preoperative CT. Although this altered surgical management in the elective surgical cohort, no change to surgical management was demonstrated in the acute abdominal emergency cohort requiring surgery.

Validation of the British Society of Thoracic Imaging guidelines for COVID-19 chest radiograph reporting

AIMTo validate the British Society of Thoracic Imaging issued guidelines for the categorisation of chest radiographs for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reporting regarding reproducibility amongst radiologists and diagnostic performance.MATERIALS AND METHODSChest radiographs from 50 patients with COVID-19, and 50 control patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 from prior to the emergence of the novel coronavirus were assessed by seven consultant radiologists with regards to the British Society of Thoracic Imaging guidelines.RESULTSThe findings show excellent specificity (100%) and moderate sensitivity (44%) for guideline-defined Classic/Probable COVID-19, and substantial interobserver agreement (Fleiss' k=0.61). Fair agreement was observed for the “Indeterminate for COVID-19” (k=0.23), and “Non-COVID-19” (k=0.37) categories; furthermore, the sensitivity (0.26 and 0.14 respectively) and specificity (0.76, 0.80) of these categories for COVID-19 were not significantly different (McNemar's test p=0.18 and p=0.67).CONCLUSIONAn amalgamation of the categories of “Indeterminate for COVID-19” and “Non-COVID-19” into a single “not classic of COVID-19” classification would improve interobserver agreement, encompass patients with a similar probability of COVID-19, and remove the possibility of labelling patients with COVID-19 as “Non-COVID-19”, which is the presenting radiographic appearance in a significant minority (14%) of patients.

Lasting lessons learnt in the radiology department from the battle with COVID-19

Lasting lessons learnt in the radiology department from the battle with COVID-19

Chest X-rays findings in COVID 19 patients at a University Teaching Hospital - A descriptive study.

Objective:To analyze Chest X-ray findings in COVID 19 positive patients, presented at corona filtration center, Benazir Bhutto Hospital Rawalpindi, based on CXR classification of British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI).Methods:In this study, all RT-PCR COVID-19 positive patients screened at corona filtration center, Benazir Bhutto hospital Rawalpindi from 20th March 2020 to 10th April 2020 were included. Mean age of the cohort with age range was calculated. Presenting complaints & Co-morbid were analyzed and tabulated in frequencies and percentages. Portable CXR findings were classified according to BSTI classification and documented in frequencies and percentages.Results:Mean age of the patients was 44 years. Presenting complaints were cough 20 (67%), fever 18 (60%), shortness of breath 11 (37%), sore throat six (20%), loss of sense of taste and smell four(13%). Main co-morbid was hypertension six (20%). Two (7%) patients had normal and seven (23%) had classical COVID CXRs. 21 (70%) patients were in indeterminate group with only one (3%) having unilateral lung disease. Three (10%) patients had diffuse lung involvement and 18(60%) had peripheral lung involvement. Majority of patients 19 (63%), had bilateral middle and lower zonal involvement.Conclusions:In this study, COVID-19 CXRs generally manifested a spectrum of pure ground glass, mixed ground glass opacities to consolidation in bilateral peripheral middle and lower lung zones. BSTI CXR reporting classification of COVID-19 is valid in our patients with addition of middle zonal involvement in classical COVID-19 criteria as opposed to just lower zone involvement.

A British Society of Thoracic Imaging statement: considerations in designing local imaging diagnostic algorithms for the COVID-19 pandemic

In accordance with guidance from the Chief Medical Officer's office and the Royal College of Radiologists, the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) recognises that based on the available evidence computed tomography (CT) currently has no upfront role in the diagnostic work-up of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infection (https://www.rcr.ac.uk/college/coronavirus-covid-19-what-rcr-doing/rcr-position-role-ct-patients-suspected-covid-19). Nevertheless, a number of reports have been published highlighting CT appearances in COVID-19, raising the possibility of a role for CT in patient management.

A UK-wide British Society of Thoracic Imaging COVID-19 imaging repository and database: design, rationale and implications for education and research

A UK-wide British Society of Thoracic Imaging COVID-19 imaging repository and database: design, rationale and implications for education and research

A survey of UK percutaneous lung biopsy practice: current practices in the era of early detection, oncogenetic profiling, and targeted treatments

To ascertain current percutaneous lung biopsy practices around the UK. A web-based survey was sent to all British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) and British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) members (May 2017) assessing all aspects of lung biopsy practice. Responses were collected anonymously. Two hundred and thirty-nine completed responses were received (28.8% response rate). Of the respondents, 48.5% worked in a teaching hospital and 51.5% in a district general hospital, while 32.6% (78/239) were specialist thoracic radiologists, 29.2% (70/239) "general" radiologists with a thoracic subspecialty interest, and 28% (67/239) interventional radiologists. Of the respondents, 30.1% (72/239) did not require pre-biopsy lung function tests (PFTs); 45.6% (108/237) stopped aspirin before the procedure; 97.5% primarily use computed tomography (CT) guidance for biopsy and 88.7% (212/239) perform core needle biopsy (CNB); and 86.6% of radiologists use a co-axial technique. There was wide variation in the number of samples routinely taken with most radiologists performing 1-2 passes (55.9%) or 3-4 passes (40.8%). Sixty-four percent reported using chest drain prevention techniques to minimise the impact of iatrogenic pneumothorax, with needle aspiration most frequent (43.9%). Timing of post-biopsy chest radiography (CXR), performed by 95.8% (228/239), also varied greatly: most commonly at either 1 hour (23%), 2 hours (24.7%), or 4 hours (22.6%). Moreover, the time of patient discharge after uncomplicated biopsy was variable, although the majority (66.1%) discharge patients after ≥4 hours. There are striking variations among surveyed UK radiologists performing lung biopsy in decision-making, pre-biopsy work-up, post-biopsy monitoring, management of pneumothorax, and discharge. The results suggest a need for new updated national percutaneous lung biopsy guidelines.