Objective We aim to demonstrate that a chest X-ray (CXR) scoring system for COVID-19 patients correlates with patient outcome and has a prognostic value. Methods This retrospective study included CXRs of COVID-19 patients that reported the Brixia score, a semi-quantitative scoring system rating lung involvement from 0 to 18. The highest (H) and lowest (L) values were registered along with scores on admission (A) and end of hospitalization (E). The Brixia score was correlated with the outcome (death or discharge). Results A total of 953 patients met inclusion criteria. In total, 677/953 were discharged and 276/953 died during hospitalization. A total of 524/953 had one CXR and 429/953 had more than one CXR. H-score was significantly higher in deceased (median, 12; IQR 9–14) compared to that in discharged patients (median, 8; IQR 5–11) (p < 0.0001). In 429/953 patients with multiple CXR, A-score, L-score, and E-score were higher in deceased than in discharged patients (A-score 9 vs 8; p = 0.039; L-score 7 vs 5; p < 0.0003; E-score 12 vs 7; p < 0.0001). In the entire cohort, logistic regression showed a significant predictive value for age (p < 0.0001, OR 1.13), H-score (p < 0.0001, OR 1.25), and gender (p = 0.01, male OR 1.67). AUC was 0.863. In patients with ≥ 2 CXR, A-, L-, and E-scores correlated significantly with the outcome. Cox proportional hazards regression indicated age (p < 0.0001, HR 4.17), H-score (< 9, HR 0.36, p = 0.0012), and worsening of H-score vs A score > 3 (HR 1.57, p = 0.0227) as associated with worse outcome. Conclusions The Brixia score correlates strongly with disease severity and outcome; it may support the clinical decision-making, particularly in patients with moderate-to-severe signs and symptoms. The Brixia score should be incorporated in a prognostic model, which would be desirable, particularly in resource-constraint scenarios. Key Points • To demonstrate the importance of the Brixia score in assessing and monitoring COVID-19 lung involvement. • The Brixia score strongly correlates with patient outcome and can be easily implemented in the routine reporting of CXR.

No abstract

ADC is significantly lower in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma positive for human papillomavirus compared with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma negative for it. ADC and smoking status allowed noninvasive prediction of human papillomavirus status with a good accuracy. These results should be validated and further investigated on larger prospective studies.

Radiomics is an emerging translational field of medicine based on the extraction of high-dimensional data from radiological images, with the purpose to reach reliable models to be applied into clinical practice for the purposes of diagnosis, prognosis and evaluation of disease response to treatment. We aim to provide the basic information on radiomics to radiologists and clinicians who are focused on breast cancer care, encouraging cooperation with scientists to mine data for a better application in clinical practice. We investigate the workflow and clinical application of radiomics in breast cancer care, as well as the outlook and challenges based on recent studies. Currently, radiomics has the potential ability to distinguish between benign and malignant breast lesions, to predict breast cancer’s molecular subtypes, the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the lymph node metastases. Even though radiomics has been used in tumor diagnosis and prognosis, it is still in the research phase and some challenges need to be faced to obtain a clinical translation. In this review, we discuss the current limitations and promises of radiomics for improvement in further research.

Breast cancer diagnosis and staging is based on mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has gained momentum as an innovative and clinically useful method for breast assessment. CESM is based on abnormal enhancement of neoplastic tissue compared to surrounding breast tissue. We performed a systematic review of prospective trial to evaluate its diagnostic performance, following standard PRISMA-DTA. We used a bivariate random-effects regression approach to obtain summary estimates of both sensitivity and specificity of CESM. 8 studies published between 2003 and 2019 were included in the meta-analysis for a total of 945 lesions. The summary area under the curve obtained from all the study was 89% [95% CI 86%–91%], with a sensitivity of 85% [95% CI 73%–93%], and a specificity of 77% [95% CI 60%–88%]. With a pre-test probability of malignancy of 57% a positive finding at CESM gives a post-test probability of 83% while a negative finding a post-test probability of 20%. CESM shows a suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of breast cancer in a selected population, and at present time, it could be considered only as a possible alternative test for breast lesions assessment when mammography and ultrasound are not conclusive or MRI is contraindicated or not available.