A European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) survey on the radiological assessment of response to oncologic treatments in clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

To present the results of a survey on the assessment of treatment response with imaging in oncologic patient, in routine clinical practice. The survey was promoted by the European Society of Oncologic Imaging to gather information for the development of reporting models and recommendations.

METHODS

The survey was launched on the European Society of Oncologic Imaging website and was available for 3 weeks. It consisted of 5 sections, including 24 questions related to the following topics: demographic and professional information, methods for lesion measurement, how to deal with diminutive lesions, how to report baseline and follow-up examinations, which previous studies should be used for comparison, and role of RECIST 1.1 criteria in the daily clinical practice.

RESULTS

A total of 286 responses were received. Most responders followed the RECIST 1.1 recommendations for the measurement of target lesions and lymph nodes and for the assessment of tumor response. To assess response, 48.6% used previous and/or best response study in addition to baseline, 25.2% included the evaluation of all main time points, and 35% used as the reference only the previous study. A considerable number of responders used RECIST 1.1 criteria in daily clinical practice (41.6%) or thought that they should be always applied (60.8%).

CONCLUSION

Since standardized criteria are mainly a prerogative of clinical trials, in daily routine, reporting strategies are left to radiologists and oncologists, which may issue local and diversified recommendations. The survey emphasizes the need for more generally applicable rules for response assessment in clinical practice.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Compared to clinical trials which use specific criteria to evaluate response to oncological treatments, the free narrative report usually adopted in daily clinical practice may lack clarity and useful information, and therefore, more structured approaches are needed.

KEY POINTS

· Most radiologists consider standardized reporting strategies essential for an objective assessment of tumor response in clinical practice. · Radiologists increasingly rely on RECIST 1.1 in their daily clinical practice. · Treatment response evaluation should require a complete analysis of all imaging time points and not only of the last.

Best imaging signs identified by radiomics could outperform the model: application to differentiating lung carcinoid tumors from atypical hamartomas

OBJECTIVES

Lung carcinoids and atypical hamartomas may be difficult to differentiate but require different treatment. The aim was to differentiate these tumors using contrast-enhanced CT semantic and radiomics criteria.

METHODS

Between November 2009 and June 2020, consecutives patient operated for hamartomas or carcinoids with contrast-enhanced chest-CT were retrospectively reviewed. Semantic criteria were recorded and radiomics features were extracted from 3D segmentations using Pyradiomics. Reproducible and non-redundant radiomics features were used to training a random forest algorithm with cross-validation. A validation-set from another institution was used to evaluate of the radiomics signature, the 3D 'median' attenuation feature (3D-median) alone and the mean value from 2D-ROIs.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients (median 58 years [43‒70]) were analyzed (16 hamartomas; 57 carcinoids). The radiomics signature predicted hamartomas vs carcinoids on the external dataset (22 hamartomas; 32 carcinoids) with an AUC = 0.76. The 3D-median was the most important in the model. Density thresholds < 10 HU to predict hamartoma and > 60 HU to predict carcinoids were chosen for their high specificity > 0.90. On the external dataset, sensitivity and specificity of the 3D-median and 2D-ROIs were, respectively, 0.23, 1.00 and 0.13, 1.00 < 10 HU; 0.63, 0.95 and 0.69, 0.91 > 60 HU. The 3D-median was more reproducible than 2D-ROIs (ICC = 0.97 95% CI [0.95‒0.99]; bias: 3 ± 7 HU limits of agreement (LoA) [- 10‒16] vs. ICC = 0.90 95% CI [0.85‒0.94]; bias: - 0.7 ± 21 HU LoA [- 4‒40], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A radiomics signature can distinguish hamartomas from carcinoids with an AUC = 0.76. Median density < 10 HU and > 60 HU on 3D or 2D-ROIs may be useful in clinical practice to diagnose these tumors with confidence, but 3D is more reproducible.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Radiomic features help to identify the most discriminating imaging signs using random forest. 'Median' attenuation value (Hounsfield units), extracted from 3D-segmentations on contrast-enhanced chest-CTs, could distinguish carcinoids from atypical hamartomas (AUC = 0.85), was reproducible (ICC = 0.97), and generalized to an external dataset.

KEY POINTS

• 3D-'Median' was the best feature to differentiate carcinoids from atypical hamartomas (AUC = 0.85). • 3D-'Median' feature is reproducible (ICC = 0.97) and was generalized to an external dataset. • Radiomics signature from 3D-segmentations differentiated carcinoids from atypical hamartomas with an AUC = 0.76. • 2D-ROI value reached similar performance to 3D-'median' but was less reproducible (ICC = 0.90).

Comparative performances of machine learning algorithms in radiomics and impacting factors

There are no current recommendations on which machine learning (ML) algorithms should be used in radiomics. The objective was to compare performances of ML algorithms in radiomics when applied to different clinical questions to determine whether some strategies could give the best and most stable performances regardless of datasets. This study compares the performances of nine feature selection algorithms combined with fourteen binary classification algorithms on ten datasets. These datasets included radiomics features and clinical diagnosis for binary clinical classifications including COVID-19 pneumonia or sarcopenia on CT, head and neck, orbital or uterine lesions on MRI. For each dataset, a train-test split was created. Each of the 126 (9 × 14) combinations of feature selection algorithms and classification algorithms was trained and tuned using a ten-fold cross validation, then AUC was computed. This procedure was repeated three times per dataset. Best overall performances were obtained with JMI and JMIM as feature selection algorithms and random forest and linear regression models as classification algorithms. The choice of the classification algorithm was the factor explaining most of the performance variation (10% of total variance). The choice of the feature selection algorithm explained only 2% of variation, while the train-test split explained 9%.

Designing clinical trials based on modern imaging and metastasis-directed treatments in patients with oligometastatic breast cancer: a consensus recommendation from the EORTC Imaging and Breast Cancer Groups

Breast cancer remains the most common cause of cancer death among women. Despite its considerable histological and molecular heterogeneity, those characteristics are not distinguished in most definitions of oligometastatic disease and clinical trials of oligometastatic breast cancer. After an exhaustive review of the literature covering all aspects of oligometastatic breast cancer, 35 experts from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Imaging and Breast Cancer Groups elaborated a Delphi questionnaire aimed at offering consensus recommendations, including oligometastatic breast cancer definition, optimal diagnostic pathways, and clinical trials required to evaluate the effect of diagnostic imaging strategies and metastasis-directed therapies. The main recommendations are the introduction of modern imaging methods in metastatic screening for an earlier diagnosis of oligometastatic breast cancer and the development of prospective trials also considering the histological and molecular complexity of breast cancer. Strategies for the randomisation of imaging methods and therapeutic approaches in different subsets of patients are also addressed.

Strategies to safely rule out pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 outpatients: a multicenter retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to define a safe strategy to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 outpatients, without performing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA).

METHODS

COVID-19 outpatients from 15 university hospitals who underwent a CTPA were retrospectively evaluated. D-Dimers, variables of the revised Geneva and Wells scores, as well as laboratory findings and clinical characteristics related to COVID-19 pneumonia, were collected. CTPA reports were reviewed for the presence of PE and the extent of COVID-19 disease. PE rule-out strategies were based solely on D-Dimer tests using different thresholds, the revised Geneva and Wells scores, and a COVID-19 PE prediction model built on our dataset were compared. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), failure rate, and efficiency were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 1369 patients were included of whom 124 were PE positive (9.1%). Failure rate and efficiency of D-Dimer > 500 µg/l were 0.9% (95%CI, 0.2-4.8%) and 10.1% (8.5-11.9%), respectively, increasing to 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) and 16.4% (14.4-18.7%), respectively, for an age-adjusted D-Dimer level. D-dimer > 1000 µg/l led to an unacceptable failure rate to 8.1% (4.4-14.5%). The best performances of the revised Geneva and Wells scores were obtained using the age-adjusted D-Dimer level. They had the same failure rate of 1.0% (0.2-5.3%) for efficiency of 16.8% (14.7-19.1%), and 16.9% (14.8-19.2%) respectively. The developed COVID-19 PE prediction model had an AUC of 0.609 (0.594-0.623) with an efficiency of 20.5% (18.4-22.8%) when its failure was set to 0.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

The strategy to safely exclude PE in COVID-19 outpatients should not differ from that used in non-COVID-19 patients. The added value of the COVID-19 PE prediction model is minor.

KEY POINTS

• D-dimer level remains the most important predictor of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. • The AUCs of the revised Geneva and Wells scores using an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold were 0.587 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603) and 0.588 (95%CI, 0.572 to 0.603). • The AUC of COVID-19-specific strategy to rule out pulmonary embolism ranged from 0.513 (95%CI: 0.503 to 0.522) to 0.609 (95%CI: 0.594 to 0.623).

MRI Evaluation of Uterine Masses for Risk of Leiomyosarcoma: A Consensus Statement

Laparoscopic myomectomy, a common gynecologic operation in premenopausal women, has become heavily regulated since 2014 following the dissemination of unsuspected uterine leiomyosarcoma (LMS) throughout the pelvis of a physician treated for symptomatic leiomyoma. Research since that time suggests a higher prevalence than previously suspected of uterine LMS in resected masses presumed to represent leiomyoma, as high as one in 770 women (0.13%). Though rare, the dissemination of an aggressive malignant neoplasm due to noncontained electromechanical morcellation in laparoscopic myomectomy is a devastating outcome. Gynecologic surgeons' desire for an evidence-based, noninvasive evaluation for LMS is driven by a clear need to avoid such harms while maintaining the availability of minimally invasive surgery for symptomatic leiomyoma. Laparoscopic gynecologists could rely upon the distinction of higher-risk uterine masses preoperatively to plan oncologic surgery (ie, potential hysterectomy) for patients with elevated risk for LMS and, conversely, to safely offer women with no or minimal indicators of elevated risk the fertility-preserving laparoscopic myomectomy. MRI evaluation for LMS may potentially serve this purpose in symptomatic women with leiomyomas. This evidence review and consensus statement defines imaging and disease-related terms to allow more uniform and reliable interpretation and identifies the highest priorities for future research on LMS evaluation.

Attitudes and perceptions of radiologists towards online (virtual) oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic-a survey of the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI)

OBJECTIVES

To explore radiologists' opinions regarding the shift from in-person oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) to online MDTMs. To assess the perceived impact of online MDTMs, and to evaluate clinical and technical aspects of online meetings.

METHODS

An online questionnaire including 24 questions was e-mailed to all European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. Questions targeted the structure and efficacy of online MDTMs, including benefits and limitations.

RESULTS

A total of 204 radiologists responded to the survey. Responses were evaluated using descriptive statistical analysis. The majority (157/204; 77%) reported a shift to online MDTMs at the start of the pandemic. For the most part, this transition had a positive effect on maintaining and improving attendance. The majority of participants reported that online MDTMs provide the same clinical standard as in-person meetings, and that interdisciplinary discussion and review of imaging data were not hindered. Seventy three of 204 (35.8%) participants favour reverting to in-person MDTs, once safe to do so, while 7/204 (3.4%) prefer a continuation of online MDTMs. The majority (124/204, 60.8%) prefer a combination of physical and online MDTMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Online MDTMs are a viable alternative to in-person meetings enabling continued timely high-quality provision of care with maintained coordination between specialties. They were accepted by the majority of surveyed radiologists who also favoured their continuation after the pandemic, preferably in combination with in-person meetings. An awareness of communication issues particular to online meetings is important. Training, improved software, and availability of support are essential to overcome technical and IT difficulties reported by participants.

KEY POINTS

• Majority of surveyed radiologists reported shift from in-person to online oncologic MDT meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. • The shift to online MDTMs was feasible and generally accepted by the radiologists surveyed with the majority reporting that online MDTMs provide the same clinical standard as in-person meetings. • Most would favour the return to in-person MDTMs but would also accept the continued use of online MDTMs following the end of the current pandemic.

Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal oncology imaging: A critical review of current applications

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being studied in musculoskeletal oncology imaging. AI has been applied to both primary and secondary bone tumors and assessed for various predictive tasks that include detection, segmentation, classification, and prognosis. Still, in the field of clinical research, further efforts are needed to improve AI reproducibility and reach an acceptable level of evidence in musculoskeletal oncology. This review describes the basic principles of the most common AI techniques, including machine learning, deep learning and radiomics. Then, recent developments and current results of AI in the field of musculoskeletal oncology are presented. Finally, limitations and future perspectives of AI in this field are discussed.

Standardised lesion segmentation for imaging biomarker quantitation: a consensus recommendation from ESR and EORTC

BACKGROUND

Lesion/tissue segmentation on digital medical images enables biomarker extraction, image-guided therapy delivery, treatment response measurement, and training/validation for developing artificial intelligence algorithms and workflows. To ensure data reproducibility, criteria for standardised segmentation are critical but currently unavailable.

METHODS

A modified Delphi process initiated by the European Imaging Biomarker Alliance (EIBALL) of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging Group was undertaken. Three multidisciplinary task forces addressed modality and image acquisition, segmentation methodology itself, and standards and logistics. Devised survey questions were fed via a facilitator to expert participants. The 58 respondents to Round 1 were invited to participate in Rounds 2-4. Subsequent rounds were informed by responses of previous rounds.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Items with ≥ 75% consensus are considered a recommendation. These include system performance certification, thresholds for image signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and tumour-to-background ratios, spatial resolution, and artefact levels. Direct, iterative, and machine or deep learning reconstruction methods, use of a mixture of CE marked and verified research tools were agreed and use of specified reference standards and validation processes considered essential. Operator training and refreshment were considered mandatory for clinical trials and clinical research. Items with a 60-74% agreement require reporting (site-specific accreditation for clinical research, minimal pixel number within lesion segmented, use of post-reconstruction algorithms, operator training refreshment for clinical practice). Items with ≤ 60% agreement are outside current recommendations for segmentation (frequency of system performance tests, use of only CE-marked tools, board certification of operators, frequency of operator refresher training). Recommendations by anatomical area are also specified.

Extraction of Tumor Response Criteria in Semi-Structured Imaging Report

In this study, we extracted information from 6,376 french CT scan semi-structured text reports evaluating the cancer treatment response using the RECIST methodology. We evaluated the performance against manual annotation of 100 reports and measured the evolution of the presence of information over time. The results show high performances of the extraction as well as trends.

Validation of a deep learning segmentation algorithm to quantify the skeletal muscle index and sarcopenia in metastatic renal carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

To validate a deep learning (DL) algorithm for measurement of skeletal muscular index (SMI) and prediction of overall survival in oncology populations.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center observational study included patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma between 2007 and 2019. A set of 37 patients was used for technical validation of the algorithm, comparing manual vs DL-based evaluations. Segmentations were compared using mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), SMI using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. Overall survivals (OS) were compared using log-rank (Kaplan-Meier) and Mann-Whitney tests. Generalizability of the prognostic value was tested in an independent validation population (N = 87).

RESULTS

Differences between two manual segmentations (DSC = 0.91, CCC = 0.98 for areas) or manual vs. automated segmentation (DSC = 0.90, CCC = 0.98 for areas, CCC = 0.97 for SMI) had the same order of magnitude. Bland-Altman plots showed a mean difference of -3.33 cm² [95%CI: -15.98, 9.1] between two manual segmentations, and -3.28 cm² [95% CI: -14.77, 8.21] for manual vs. automated segmentations. With each method, 20/37 (56%) patients were classified as sarcopenic. Sarcopenic vs. non-sarcopenic groups had statistically different survival curves with median OS of 6.0 vs. 12.5 (p = 0.008) and 6.0 vs. 13.9 (p = 0.014) months respectively for manual and DL methods. In the independent validation population, sarcopenic patients according to DL had a lower OS (10.7 vs. 17.3 months, p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

A DL algorithm allowed accurate estimation of SMI compared to manual reference standard. The DL-calculated SMI demonstrated a prognostic value in terms of OS.

KEY POINTS

• A deep learning algorithm allows accurate estimation of skeletal muscle index compared to a manual reference standard with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.97. • Sarcopenic patients according to SMI thresholds after segmentation by the deep learning algorithm had statistically significantly lower overall survival compared to non-sarcopenic patients.

CHAIMELEON Project: Creation of a Pan-European Repository of Health Imaging Data for the Development of AI-Powered Cancer Management Tools

The CHAIMELEON project aims to set up a pan-European repository of health imaging data, tools and methodologies, with the ambition to set a standard and provide resources for future AI experimentation for cancer management. The project is a 4 year long, EU-funded project tackling some of the most ambitious research in the fields of biomedical imaging, artificial intelligence and cancer treatment, addressing the four types of cancer that currently have the highest prevalence worldwide: lung, breast, prostate and colorectal. To allow this, clinical partners and external collaborators will populate the repository with multimodality (MR, CT, PET/CT) imaging and related clinical data. Subsequently, AI developers will enable a multimodal analytical data engine facilitating the interpretation, extraction and exploitation of the information stored at the repository. The development and implementation of AI-powered pipelines will enable advancement towards automating data deidentification, curation, annotation, integrity securing and image harmonization. By the end of the project, the usability and performance of the repository as a tool fostering AI experimentation will be technically validated, including a validation subphase by world-class European AI developers, participating in Open Challenges to the AI Community. Upon successful validation of the repository, a set of selected AI tools will undergo early in-silico validation in observational clinical studies coordinated by leading experts in the partner hospitals. Tool performance will be assessed, including external independent validation on hallmark clinical decisions in response to some of the currently most important clinical end points in cancer. The project brings together a consortium of 18 European partners including hospitals, universities, R&D centers and private research companies, constituting an ecosystem of infrastructures, biobanks, AI/in-silico experimentation and cloud computing technologies in oncology.

Adjusting D-dimer to lung disease extent to exclude Pulmonary Embolism in COVID-19 patients (Co-LEAD)

Objective  D-dimer measurement is a safe tool to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE), but its specificity decreases in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Our aim was to derive a new algorithm with a specific D-dimer threshold for COVID-19 patients.

Methods  We conducted a French multicenter, retrospective cohort study among 774 COVID-19 patients with suspected PE. D-dimer threshold adjusted to extent of lung damage found on computed tomography (CT) was derived in a patient set ( n  = 337), and its safety assessed in an independent validation set ( n  = 337).

Results  According to receiver operating characteristic curves, in the derivation set, D-dimer safely excluded PE, with one false negative, when using a 900 ng/mL threshold when lung damage extent was <50% and 1,700 ng/mL when lung damage extent was ≥50%. In the derivation set, the algorithm sensitivity was 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.7–100.0) and its specificity 28.4% (95% CI: 24.1–32.3). The negative likelihood ratio (NLR) was 0.06 (95% CI: 0.01–0.44) and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.60–0.67). In the validation set, sensitivity and specificity were 96.7% (95% CI: 88.7–99.6) and 39.2% (95% CI: 32.2–46.1), respectively. The NLR was 0.08 (95% CI; 0.02–0.33), and the AUC did not differ from that of the derivation set (0.68, 95% CI: 0.64–0.72, p  = 0.097). Using the Co-LEAD algorithm, 76 among 250 (30.4%) COVID-19 patients with suspected PE could have been managed without CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) and 88 patients would have required two CTs.

Conclusion  The Co-LEAD algorithm could safely exclude PE, and could reduce the use of CTPA in COVID-19 patients. Further prospective studies need to validate this strategy.

Twenty Years On: RECIST as a Biomarker of Response in Solid Tumours an EORTC Imaging Group - ESOI Joint Paper

Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) v1.1 are currently the reference standard for evaluating efficacy of therapies in patients with solid tumours who are included in clinical trials, and they are widely used and accepted by regulatory agencies. This expert statement discusses the principles underlying RECIST, as well as their reproducibility and limitations. While the RECIST framework may not be perfect, the scientific bases for the anticancer drugs that have been approved using a RECIST-based surrogate endpoint remain valid. Importantly, changes in measurement have to meet thresholds defined by RECIST for response classification within thus partly circumventing the problems of measurement variability. The RECIST framework also applies to clinical patients in individual settings even though the relationship between tumour size changes and outcome from cohort studies is not necessarily translatable to individual cases. As reproducibility of RECIST measurements is impacted by reader experience, choice of target lesions and detection/interpretation of new lesions, it can result in patients changing response categories when measurements are near threshold values or if new lesions are missed or incorrectly interpreted. There are several situations where RECIST will fail to evaluate treatment-induced changes correctly; knowledge and understanding of these is crucial for correct interpretation. Also, some patterns of response/progression cannot be correctly documented by RECIST, particularly in relation to organ-site (e.g. bone without associated soft-tissue lesion) and treatment type (e.g. focal therapies). These require specialist reader experience and communication with oncologists to determine the actual impact of the therapy and best evaluation strategy. In such situations, alternative imaging markers for tumour response may be used but the sources of variability of individual imaging techniques need to be known and accounted for. Communication between imaging experts and oncologists regarding the level of confidence in a biomarker is essential for the correct interpretation of a biomarker and its application to clinical decision-making. Though measurement automation is desirable and potentially reduces the variability of results, associated technical difficulties must be overcome, and human adjudications may be required.

What level of D-dimers can safely exclude pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department?

OBJECTIVES

To identify which level of D-dimer would allow the safe exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted on the COVID database of Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). COVID-19 patients who presented at the ED of AP-HP hospitals between March 1 and May 15, 2020, and had CTPA following D-dimer dosage within 48h of presentation were included. The D-dimer sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for different D-dimer thresholds, as well as the false-negative and failure rates, and the number of CTPAs potentially avoided.

RESULTS

A total of 781 patients (mean age 62.0 years, 53.8% men) with positive RT-PCR for SARS-Cov-2 were included and 60 of them (7.7%) had CTPA-confirmed PE. Their median D-dimer level was significantly higher than that of patients without PE (4,013 vs 1,198 ng·mL^-1, p < 0.001). Using 500 ng·mL^-1, or an age-adjusted cut-off for patients > 50 years, the sensitivity and the NPV were above 90%. With these thresholds, 17.1% and 31.5% of CTPAs could have been avoided, respectively. Four of the 178 patients who had a D-dimer below the age-adjusted cutoff had PE, leading to an acceptable failure rate of 2.2%. Using higher D-dimer cut-offs could have avoided more CTPAs, but would have lowered the sensitivity and increased the failure rate.

CONCLUSION

The same D-Dimer thresholds as those validated in non-COVID outpatients should be used to safely rule out PE.

KEY POINTS

• The median D-dimer level was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients with PE as compared to those without PE (4,013 ng·mL^-1 vs 1,198 ng·mL^-1 respectively, p < 0.001). • Using 500 ng·mL^-1, or an age-adjusted D-dimer cut-off to exclude pulmonary embolism, the sensitivity and negative predictive value were above 90%. • Higher cut-offs would lead to a reduction in the sensitivity below 85% and an increase in the failure rate, especially for patients under 50 years.

[Artificial intelligence and medical imaging]

The use of artificial intelligence methods for image recognition is one of the most developed branches of the AI field and these technologies are now commonly used in our daily lives. In the field of medical imaging, approaches based on artificial intelligence are particularly promising, with numerous applications and a strong interest in the search for new biomarkers. Here, we will present the general methods used in these approaches as well as the potential areas of application.

Risks and benefits of systematic lymphadenectomy during interval debulking surgery for advanced high grade serous ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Lymphadenectomy is debated in patients with ovarian cancer. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of lymphadenectomy in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS).

METHODS

A retrospective, unicentric study including all patients undergoing NACT and IDS was carried out from 2005 to 2018. Patients with and without lymphadenectomy were compared in terms of recurrence free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and complication rates.

RESULTS

We included 203 patients. Of these, 133 had a lymphadenectomy (65.5%) and 77 had involved nodes (57.9%). Patients without a lymphadenectomy were older, had a more extensive disease and less complete CRS. No differences were noted between the lymphadenectomy and no lymphadenectomy group concerning 2-year RFS (47.4% and 48.6%, p = 0.87, respectively) and 5-year OS (63.2% versus 58.6%, p = 0.41, respectively). Post-operative complications tended to be more frequent in the lymphadenectomy group (18.57% versus 31.58%, p = 0.09). In patients with a lymphadenectomy, survival was significantly altered if the nodes were involved (positive nodes: 2-year RFS 42.5% and 5-year OS 49.4%, negative nodes: 2-year RFS 60.7% and 5-year OS 82.2%, p = 0.03 and p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Lymphadenectomy during IDS does not improve survival and increases post-operative complications.

Incorporating radiomics into clinical trials: expert consensus endorsed by the European Society of Radiology on considerations for data-driven compared to biologically driven quantitative biomarkers

Existing quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) are associated with known biological tissue characteristics and follow a well-understood path of technical, biological and clinical validation before incorporation into clinical trials. In radiomics, novel data-driven processes extract numerous visually imperceptible statistical features from the imaging data with no a priori assumptions on their correlation with biological processes. The selection of relevant features (radiomic signature) and incorporation into clinical trials therefore requires additional considerations to ensure meaningful imaging endpoints. Also, the number of radiomic features tested means that power calculations would result in sample sizes impossible to achieve within clinical trials. This article examines how the process of standardising and validating data-driven imaging biomarkers differs from those based on biological associations. Radiomic signatures are best developed initially on datasets that represent diversity of acquisition protocols as well as diversity of disease and of normal findings, rather than within clinical trials with standardised and optimised protocols as this would risk the selection of radiomic features being linked to the imaging process rather than the pathology. Normalisation through discretisation and feature harmonisation are essential pre-processing steps. Biological correlation may be performed after the technical and clinical validity of a radiomic signature is established, but is not mandatory. Feature selection may be part of discovery within a radiomics-specific trial or represent exploratory endpoints within an established trial; a previously validated radiomic signature may even be used as a primary/secondary endpoint, particularly if associations are demonstrated with specific biological processes and pathways being targeted within clinical trials. KEY POINTS: • Data-driven processes like radiomics risk false discoveries due to high-dimensionality of the dataset compared to sample size, making adequate diversity of the data, cross-validation and external validation essential to mitigate the risks of spurious associations and overfitting. • Use of radiomic signatures within clinical trials requires multistep standardisation of image acquisition, image analysis and data mining processes. • Biological correlation may be established after clinical validation but is not mandatory.

Prevalence of pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 at the time of hospital admission

A high prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been reported during intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalisation in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [1, 2]. In most cases, the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) was incidental as patients underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for aggravation of their respiratory condition. Higher mortality is also described in patients with high D-dimer levels suggesting that VTE complication may contribute to unfavourable prognosis [3, 4]. Even though, prevalence of thromboembolic complications during ICU hospitalisation seems to be high, the prevalence of pulmonary embolism at hospital admission for COVID-19 is unknown and may be underestimated.

There is a high prevalence of pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19 at the time of hospital admissionhttps://bit.ly/3reaLjv

What can we learn from the 10 mm lymph node size cut-off on the CT in advanced ovarian cancer at the time of interval debulking surgery?

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of a systematic lymphadenectomy is still debated in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) in ovarian cancer (OC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of the pre-NACT and post-NACT CT in predicting definitive histological lymph node involvement. The prognostic value of a positive node on the CT was also assessed.

MATERIEL AND METHODS

A retrospective, unicentric cohort study was performed including all patients with ovarian cancer who underwent NACT and IDS with a lymphadenectomy between 2005 and 2018. CT were analyzed blinded to pathology, and nodes with small axis ≥ 10 mm on CT were considered positive. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and negative (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV) and their CI95% were calculated. The 2-year recurrence free survival (RFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) was compared.

RESULTS

158 patients were included, among which 92 (58%) had histologically positive lymph nodes. CT had a Se, Sp, NPV and PPV of 35%, 82%, 47% and 73% before NACT and 20%, 97%, 47% and 91% after NACT, respectively. Patients with nodes considered positive had a non-significant lower 2-year RFS and 5-year OS on the pre-NACT and post-NACT CT. Patients at 'high risk' (nodes stayed positive on the CT or became positive after NACT) also had a non-significant lower 2-year RFS and 5-year OS.

CONCLUSION

Presence of enlarged lymph nodes on CT is a weak indicator of lymph node involvement in patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing NACT. However, it could be used to assess prognosis.

Study of Thoracic CT in COVID-19: The STOIC Project

Background There are conflicting data regarding the diagnostic performance of Chest computed tomography (CT) for COVID-19 pneumonia. Disease extent on CT has been reported to influence prognosis. Purpose To create a large publicly available dataset and assess the diagnostic and prognostic value of CT in COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and Methods This multicenter observational retrospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04355507) involved 20 French university hospitals. Eligible subjects presented at the emergency departments of the hospitals involved between March 1st and April 30th, 2020 and underwent both thoracic CT and RT-PCR for suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. CT images were read blinded to initial reports, RT-PCR, demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, and outcome. Readers classified CT scans as positive or negative for COVID-19, based on criteria published by the French Society of Radiology. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop a model predicting severe outcome (intubation or death) at 1-month follow-up in subjects positive for both RT-PCR and CT, using clinical and radiological features. Results Of 10,930 subjects screened for eligibility, 10,735 (median age 65 years, interquartile range, 51-77 years; 6,147 men) were included and 6,448 (60.0%) had a positive RT-PCR result. With RT-PCR as reference, the sensitivity and specificity and CT were 80.2% (95%CI: 79.3, 81.2) and 79.7% (95%CI: 78.5, 80.9), respectively with strong agreement between junior and senior radiologists (Gwet's AC1 coefficient: 0.79) Of all the variables analysed, the extent of pneumonia on CT (OR 3.25, 95%CI: 2.71, 3.89) was the best predictor of severe outcome at one month. A score based solely on clinical variables predicted a severe outcome with an AUC of 0.64 (95%CI: 0.62, 0.66), improving to 0.69 (95%CI: 0.6, 0.71) when it also included the extent of pneumonia and coronary calcium score on CT. Conclusion Using pre-defined criteria, CT reading is not influenced by reader's experience and helps predict the outcome at one month. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. See also the editorial by Rubin.