RadioGraphics Update: The 10 Pillars of Lung Cancer Screening-Rationale and Logistics of a Lung Cancer Screening Program.

Editor's Note.-RadioGraphics Update articles supplement or update information found in full-length articles previously published in RadioGraphics. These updates, written by at least one author of the previous article, provide a brief synopsis that emphasizes important new information such as technological advances, revised imaging protocols, new clinical guidelines involving imaging, or updated classification schemes.

Supportive Care for Cancer Patients Via Telehealth: Breaking Bad News and Providing Palliative Care Virtually.

ABSTRACT: Delivering oncologic care via telemedicine has presented a unique set of benefits and challenges. Discussions of sensitive topics between patients and providers can be difficult on a virtual platform. Although it was imperative to utilize telemedicine to keep cancer patients safe during the height of the pandemic, its continued use in the postvaccination era has provided important conveniences to both providers and patients. In the case of breaking bad news and end-of-life discussions, however, in-person care has remained the overwhelming preference of both groups. If face-to-face consultation is not possible or feasible in these situations, virtual visits are a viable option to connect oncologists with their patients.

Nirmatrelvir Plus Ritonavir for Early COVID-19 in a Large U.S. Health System : A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In the EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for Covid-19 in High-Risk Patients) trial, nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir led to an 89% reduction in hospitalization or death among unvaccinated outpatients with early COVID-19. The clinical impact of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir among vaccinated populations is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir reduces risk for hospitalization or death among outpatients with early COVID-19 in the setting of prevalent SARS-CoV-2 immunity and immune-evasive SARS-CoV-2 lineages. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study analyzed to emulate a clinical trial using inverse probability-weighted models to account for anticipated bias in treatment. SETTING: A large health care system providing care for 1.5 million patients in Massachusetts and New Hampshire during the Omicron wave (1 January to 17 July 2022). PATIENTS: 44 551 nonhospitalized adults (90.3% with ≥3 vaccine doses) aged 50 years or older with COVID-19 and no contraindications for nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization within 14 days or death within 28 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: During the study period, 12 541 (28.1%) patients were prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir, and 32 010 (71.9%) were not. Patients prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir were more likely to be older, have more comorbidities, and be vaccinated. The composite outcome of hospitalization or death occurred in 69 (0.55%) patients who were prescribed nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and 310 (0.97%) who were not (adjusted risk ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.75]). Recipients of nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir had lower risk for hospitalization (adjusted risk ratio, 0.60 [CI, 0.44 to 0.81]) and death (adjusted risk ratio, 0.29 [CI, 0.12 to 0.71]). LIMITATION: Potential residual confounding due to differential access to COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatment. CONCLUSION: The overall risk for hospitalization or death was already low (1%) after an outpatient diagnosis of COVID-19, but nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir reduced this risk further. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Validation of a Deep Learning-Based Model to Predict Lung Cancer Risk Using Chest Radiographs and Electronic Medical Record Data.

Importance: Lung cancer screening with chest computed tomography (CT) prevents lung cancer death; however, fewer than 5% of eligible Americans are screened. CXR-LC, an open-source deep learning tool that estimates lung cancer risk from existing chest radiograph images and commonly available electronic medical record (EMR) data, may enable automated identification of high-risk patients as a step toward improving lung cancer screening participation. Objective: To validate CXR-LC using EMR data to identify individuals at high-risk for lung cancer to complement 2022 US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) lung cancer screening eligibility guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study compared CXR-LC estimates with CMS screening guidelines using patient data from a large US hospital system. Included participants were persons who currently or formerly smoked cigarettes with an outpatient posterior-anterior chest radiograph between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, with no history of lung cancer or screening CT. Data analysis was performed between May 2021 and June 2022. Exposures: CXR-LC lung cancer screening eligibility (previously defined as having a 3.297% or greater 12-year risk) based on inputs (chest radiograph image, age, sex, and whether currently smoking) extracted from the EMR. Main Outcomes and Measures: 6-year incident lung cancer. Results: A total of 14 737 persons were included in the study population (mean [SD] age, 62.6 [6.8] years; 7154 [48.5%] male; 204 [1.4%] Asian, 1051 [7.3%] Black, 432 [2.9%] Hispanic, 12 330 [85.2%] White) with a 2.4% rate of incident lung cancer over 6 years (361 patients with cancer). CMS eligibility could be determined in 6277 patients (42.6%) using smoking pack-year and quit-date from the EMR. Patients eligible by both CXR-LC and 2022 CMS criteria had a high rate of lung cancer (83 of 974 patients [8.5%]), higher than those eligible by 2022 CMS criteria alone (5 of 177 patients [2.8%]; P < .001). Patients eligible by CXR-LC but not 2022 CMS criteria also had a high 6-year incidence of lung cancer (121 of 3703 [3.3%]). In the 8460 cases (57.4%) where CMS eligibility was unknown, CXR-LC eligible patients had a 5-fold higher rate of lung cancer than ineligible (127 of 5177 [2.5%] vs 18 of 2283 [0.5%]; P < .001). Similar results were found in subgroups, including female patients and Black persons. Conclusions and Relevance: Using routine chest radiographs and other data automatically extracted from the EMR, CXR-LC identified high-risk individuals who may benefit from lung cancer screening CT.

Association of Self-reported Primary Care Physician Tolerance for Uncertainty With Variations in Resource Use and Patient Experience.

Importance: Inappropriate variations in clinical practice are a known cause of poor quality and safety, with variations often associated with nonclinical factors, such as individual differences in cognitive processing. The differential response of physicians to uncertainty may explain some of the variations in resource use and patient experience. Objective: To examine the association of physician tolerance for uncertainty with variations in resource use and patient experience. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study linked physician survey data (May to June 2019), patient experience survey data (January 2016 to December 2019), and billing data (January 2019 to December 2019) among primary care physicians (PCPs) at Massachusetts General Hospital with at least 10 visits in 2019. The statistical analysis was performed in 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The analysis examined associations of PCP tolerance for uncertainty with the tendency to order diagnostic tests, the frequency of outpatient visits, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and patient experience data (focused on physician communication and overall rating). A 2-stage hierarchical framework was used to account for clustering of patients under PCPs. Binary outcomes were modeled using a hierarchical logistic model, and count outcomes were modeled using hierarchical Poisson or negative binomial models. The analysis was adjusted for patient demographic variables (age, sex, and race and ethnicity), socioeconomic factors (payer and neighborhood income), and clinical comorbidities. Results: Of 217 included physicians, 137 (63.1%) were women, and 174 (80.2%) were adult PCPs. A total of 62 physicians (28.6%) reported low tolerance, 59 (27.2%) reported medium tolerance, and 96 (44.2%) reported high tolerance for uncertainty. Physicians with a low tolerance for uncertainty were less likely to order complete blood cell counts (odds ratio [OR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), thyroid tests (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88), a basic metabolic profile (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00), and liver function tests (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99) than physicians with a high tolerance for uncertainty. Physicians who reported higher tolerance for uncertainty were more likely to receive higher patient experience scores for listening to patients carefully (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83) and higher overall ratings (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98) than physicians with medium tolerance. Conversely, no association was found between physician tolerance for uncertainty and patient outpatient visits, hospital admissions, or emergency department visits. Conclusions and Relevance: In clinical practice, identifying and effectively managing inappropriate variations and improving patient experience have proven to be difficult, despite increased attention to these issues. This study supports the hypothesis that physicians' tolerance for uncertainty is associated with differences in resource use and patient experience. Whether enhancing physicians' tolerance for uncertainty could help reduce unwarranted practice variations, improve quality and patient safety, and improve patient's experience remains to be established.

A Phase 2 Study of Lorlatinib in Patients With ROS1-Rearranged Lung Cancer With Brain-Only Progression on Crizotinib.

Introduction: The central nervous system (CNS) is a common site of progression among patients with ROS1-rearranged lung cancer receiving crizotinib. We conducted a phase 2 study to evaluate the intracranial efficacy of lorlatinib in patients with ROS1-rearranged lung cancer who developed CNS-only progression on crizotinib. Methods: Patients with metastatic ROS1-rearranged lung cancer with CNS-only progression on crizotinib received lorlatinib 100 mg daily. The primary end point was intracranial disease control rate at 12 weeks per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included intracranial and extracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and safety/tolerability. Results: A total of 16 patients were enrolled between November 2016 and January 2019. Nine patients (56%) had received prior CNS radiation, with a median of 10.9 months between radiation and lorlatinib. At 12 weeks, the intracranial disease control rate was 100% and intracranial objective response rate was 87%. While on study, the complee intracranial response rate was 60%. With median follow-up of 22 months, seven patients experienced disease progression, including five patients with CNS relapse. The median intracranial and extracranial progression-free survivals were 38.8 months (95% confidence interval: 16.9-not reported) and 41.1 months (95% confidence interval: 17.6-not reported), respectively. Molecular analysis of plasma or tissue from patients with extracranial progression on lorlatinib revealed ROS1 G2032R (n = 1), ROS1 L2086F (n = 1), and CCDC6-RET fusion plus ROS1 G2032R (n = 1). The safety profile of lorlatinib was consistent with prior studies. There were 11 patients (69%) who required dose reduction, including one patient who discontinued treatment for grade 3 edema. No grade greater than or equal to 4 adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Lorlatinib induced durable intracranial responses in patients with ROS1-rearranged NSCLC and prior isolated CNS progression on crizotinib.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Lung Cancer Screening, Version 1.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening recommend criteria for selecting individuals for screening and provide recommendations for evaluation and follow-up of lung nodules found during initial and subsequent screening. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening.

Incidence of Radiation Therapy Among Patients Enrolled in a Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Nodule and Lung Cancer Screening Clinic.

Importance: The number of pulmonary nodules discovered incidentally or through screening programs has increased markedly. Multidisciplinary review and management are recommended, but the involvement of radiation oncologists in this context has not been defined. Objective: To assess the role of stereotactic body radiation therapy among patients enrolled in a lung cancer screening program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was performed at a pulmonary nodule and lung cancer screening clinic from October 1, 2012, to September 31, 2019. Referrals were based on chest computed tomography with Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 finding or an incidental nodule 6 mm or larger. A multidisciplinary team of practitioners from radiology, thoracic surgery, pulmonology, medical oncology, and radiation oncology reviewed all nodules and coordinated workup and treatment as indicated. Exposures: Patients referred to the pulmonary nodule and lung cancer screening clinic with an incidental or screen-detected pulmonary nodule. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing therapeutic intervention with radiation therapy, stratified by the route of detection of their pulmonary nodules (incidental vs screen detected). Secondary outcomes were 2-year local control and metastasis-free survival. Results: Among 1150 total patients (median [IQR] age, 66.5 [59.3-73.7] years; 665 [57.8%] female; 1024 [89.0%] non-Hispanic White; 841 [73.1%] current or former smokers), 234 (20.3%) presented with screen-detected nodules and 916 (79.7%) with incidental nodules. For patients with screen-detected nodules requiring treatment, 41 (17.5%) received treatment, with 31 (75.6%) undergoing surgery and 10 (24.4%) receiving radiation therapy. Patients treated with radiation therapy were older (median [IQR] age, 73.8 [67.1 to 82.1] vs 67.6 [61.0 to 72.9] years; P < .001) and more likely to have history of tobacco use (67 [95.7%] vs 128 [76.6%]; P = .001) than those treated with surgery. Fifty-eight patients treated with radiation therapy (82.9%) were considered high risk for biopsy, and treatment recommendations were based on a clinical diagnosis of lung cancer after multidisciplinary review. All screened patients who received radiation therapy had stage I disease and were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. For all patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy, 2-year local control was 96.3% (95% CI, 91.1%-100%) and metastasis-free survival was 94.2% (95% CI, 87.7%-100%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this unique prospective cohort, 1 in 4 patients with screen-detected pulmonary nodules requiring intervention were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy. This finding highlights the role of radiation therapy in a lung cancer screening population and the importance of including radiation oncologists in the multidisciplinary management of pulmonary nodules.

Lessons for Oncology From the COVID-19 Pandemic: Operationalizing and Scaling Virtual Cancer Care in Health Systems.

ABSTRACT: After several decades of slow expansion, the use of virtual care in oncology rapidly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from cancer centers across the country show that most patients and providers were satisfied with components of virtual care, and virtual care may be able to improve access to care. However, the rapid implementation of programs during the pandemic worsened disparities in access to virtual care. Health systems must develop strategies to monitor quality, support patients and providers, promote health equity, and overcome regulatory challenges to successfully deliver care in hybrid systems that combine in-person and virtual care.

Lung-RADS Category 3 and 4 Nodules on Lung Cancer Screening in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND. Lung-RADS category 3 and 4 nodules account for most screening-detected lung cancers and are considered actionable nodules with management implications. The cancer frequency among such nodules is estimated in the Lung-RADS recommendations and has been investigated primarily by means of retrospectively assigned Lung-RADS classifications. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency of cancer among lung nodules assigned Lung-RADS category 3 or 4 at lung cancer screening (LCS) in clinical practice and to evaluate factors that affect the cancer frequency within each category. METHODS. This retrospective study was based on review of clinical radiology reports of 9148 consecutive low-dose CT LCS examinations performed for 4798 patients between June 2014 and January 2021 as part of an established LCS program. Unique nodules assigned Lung-RADS category 3 or 4 (4A, 4B, or 4X) that were clinically categorized as benign or malignant in a multidisciplinary conference that considered histologic analysis and follow-up imaging were selected for further analysis. Benign diagnoses based on stability required at least 12 months of follow-up imaging. Indeterminate nodules were excluded. Cancer frequencies were evaluated. RESULTS. Of the 9148 LCS examinations, 857 (9.4%) were assigned Lung-RADS category 3, and 721 (7.9%) were assigned category 4. The final analysis included 1297 unique nodules in 1139 patients (598 men, 541 women; mean age, 66.0 ± 6.3 years). A total of 1108 of 1297 (85.4%) nodules were deemed benign, and 189 of 1297 (14.6%) were deemed malignant. The frequencies of malignancy of category 3, 4A, 4B, and 4X nodules were 3.9%, 15.5%, 36.3%, and 76.8%. A total of 45 of 46 (97.8%) endobronchial nodules (all category 4A) were deemed benign on the basis of resolution. Cancer frequency was 13.1% for solid, 24.4% for part-solid, and 13.5% for ground-glass nodules. CONCLUSION. In the application of Lung-RADS to LCS clinical practice, the frequency of Lung-RADS category 3 and 4 nodules and the cancer frequency in these categories were higher than the prevalence and cancer risk estimated for category 3 and 4 nodules in the Lung-RADS recommendations and those reported in earlier studies in which category assignments were retrospective. Nearly all endobronchial category 4A nodules were benign. CLINICAL IMPACT. Future Lung-RADS iterations should consider the findings of this study from real-world practice to improve the clinical utility of the system.

Integrating tobacco treatment into lung cancer screening practices: Study protocol for the Screen ASSIST randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Integrating tobacco treatment services into lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to leverage a 'teachable moment' to promote cessation among long-term smokers and reduce disparities in tobacco treatment access. This protocol paper describes the Screen ASSIST (Aiding Screening Support In Stopping Tobacco) trial, which will identify how to best deliver evidence-driven tobacco treatment in the context of LCS. METHODS: Screen ASSIST is a randomized clinical trial with a 3-factor, fully crossed factorial design that enrolls current smokers (any cigarette use in the past 30 days) scheduled to attend LCS at multiple sites in the Mass General Brigham healthcare system. To maximize reach, recruitment is conducted at 3 time points: 1) at the time of LCS scheduling, 2) at the LCS visit, and 3) after the participant has received their LCS results. Participants are stratified by LCS study site and recruitment point and randomly assigned into 8 groups that test intervention components varying on telehealth counseling duration (4 weeks vs. 8 weeks), nicotine replacement therapy duration (2 weeks vs. 8 weeks), and systematic screening and referral for social determinants of health via a service named 'AuntBertha' (referral vs. no referral). The primary study outcome is self-reported past 7-day tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. This trial will also assess systems integration and evaluate implementation of the intervention. DISCUSSION: Screen ASSIST will identify the most effective combination of tobacco cessation treatments within the LCS context, in order to improve the cost-effectiveness of LCS and quality of life among long-term heavy smokers.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Lung Cancers Detected on Low-Dose Lung Cancer Screening CT.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) was implemented in the United States following the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The real-world benefits of implementing LCS are yet to be determined with outcome-oriented data. The study objective is to investigate the characteristics and outcomes of screening-detected lung cancers. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective study included LCS patients between June 2014 and December 2019. Patient demographics, number of screening rounds, imaging features, clinical workup, disease extent, histopathology, treatment, complications, and mortality outcomes of screening-detected lung cancers were extracted and compared with NLST data. RESULTS: LCS LDCTs (7,480) were performed on 4,176 patients. The cancer detection rate was 3.8%, higher than reported by NLST (2.4%, P < 0.0001), and cancers were most often found in patients ≥65 years (62%), older than those in NLST (41%, P < 0.0001). The patients' ethnicity was similar to NLST, P = 0.87. Most LCS-detected cancers were early stage I tumors (71% vs. 54% in NLST, P < 0.0001). Two thirds of cancers were detected in the first round of screening (67.1%) and were multifocal lung cancers in 15%. As in NLST, the complication rate after invasive workup or surgery was low (24% vs. 28% in NLST, P = 0.32). Over a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the mortality rate was 0.45%, lower than NLST (1.33%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: LCS implementation achieved a higher cancer detection rate, detection of early-stage cancers, and more multifocal lung cancers compared with the NLST, with low complications and mortality. IMPACT: The real-world implementation of LCS has been successful for detection of lung cancer with favorable outcomes.

Artificial intelligence-based vessel suppression for detection of sub-solid nodules in lung cancer screening computed tomography.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) helps early lung cancer detection, commonly presenting as small pulmonary nodules. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based vessel suppression (AI-VS) and automatic detection (AI-AD) algorithm can improve detection of subsolid nodules (SSNs) on LDCT. We assessed the impact of AI-VS and AI-AD in detection and classification of SSNs [ground-glass nodules (GGNs) and part-solid nodules (PSNs)], on LDCT performed for LCS. METHODS: Following regulatory approval, 123 LDCT examinations with sub-solid pulmonary nodules (average diameter ≥6 mm) were processed to generate three image series for each examination-unprocessed, AI-VS, and AI-AD series with annotated lung nodules. Two thoracic radiologists in consensus formed the standard of reference (SOR) for this study. Two other thoracic radiologists (R1 and R2; 5 and 10 years of experience in thoracic CT image interpretation) independently assessed the unprocessed images alone, then together with AI-VS series, and finally with AI-AD for detecting all ≥6 mm GGN and PSN. We performed receiver operator characteristics (ROC) and Cohen's Kappa analyses for statistical analyses. RESULTS: On unprocessed images, R1 and R2 detected 232/310 nodules (R1: 114 GGN, 118 PSN) and 255/310 nodules (R2: 122 GGN, 133 PSN), respectively (P>0.05). On AI-VS images, they detected 249/310 nodules (119 GGN, 130 PSN) and 277/310 nodules (128 GGN, 149 PSN), respectively (P≥0.12). When compared to the SOR, accuracy (AUC) for detection of PSN on the AI-VS images (AUC 0.80-0.81) was greater than on the unprocessed images (AUC 0.70-0.76). AI-VS images enabled detection of solid components in five nodules deemed as GGN on the unprocessed images. Accuracy of AI-AD was lower than both the radiologists (AUC 0.60-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: AI-VS improved the detection and classification of SSN into GGN and PSN on LDCT of the chest for the two radiologist (R1 and R2) readers.

A Phase 2 Study of Capmatinib in Patients With MET-Altered Lung Cancer Previously Treated With a MET Inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: Capmatinib is approved for MET exon 14-altered NSCLC on the basis of activity in targeted therapy-naive patients. We conducted a phase 2 study to assess the efficacy of capmatinib in patients previously treated with a MET inhibitor. METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC harboring MET amplification or MET exon 14 skipping alterations received capmatinib 400 mg twice daily. The primary end point was the objective response rate. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, disease control rate (DCR), intracranial response rate, and overall survival. Circulating tumor DNA was analyzed to identify capmatinib resistance mechanisms. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were enrolled between May 2016 and November 2019, including 15 patients with MET skipping alterations and five patients with MET amplification. All patients had received crizotinib; three had also received other MET-directed therapies. The median interval between crizotinib and capmatinib was 22 days (range: 4-374). Two patients (10%) achieved an objective response to capmatinib and 14 had stable disease, yielding a DCR of 80%. Among five patients who discontinued crizotinib for intolerance, the DCR was 83%, including two patients with the best tumor shrinkage of -25% and -28%. Intracranial DCR among four patients with measurable brain metastases was 100%, with no observed intracranial objective responses. Overall, the median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.5 (95% confidence interval: 1.3-11.0) and 11.3 (95% confidence interval: 5.5-not reached) months, respectively. MET D1228 and Y1230 mutations and MAPK alterations were recurrently detected in postcrizotinib, precapmatinib plasma. New and persistent MET mutations and MAPK pathway alterations were detected in plasma at progression on capmatinib. CONCLUSIONS: Capmatinib has modest activity in crizotinib-pretreated MET-altered NSCLC, potentially owing to overlapping resistance mechanisms.

Management and Outcomes of Suspected Infectious and Inflammatory Lung Abnormalities Identified on Lung Cancer Screening CT.

BACKGROUND. Incidental findings are frequently encountered during lung cancer screening (LCS). Limited data describe the prevalence of suspected acute infectious and inflammatory lung processes on LCS and how they should be managed. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence, radiologic reporting and management, and outcome of suspected infectious and inflammatory lung processes identified incidentally during LCS and to propose a management algorithm. METHODS. This retrospective study included 6314 low-dose CT (LDCT) examinations performed between June 2014 and April 2019 in 3800 patients as part of an established LCS program. Radiology reports were reviewed, and patients with potentially infectious or inflammatory lung abnormalities were identified and analyzed for descriptors of imaging findings, Lung-RADS designation, recommendations, and clinical outcomes. Using the descriptors, outcomes, and a greater than 2% threshold risk of malignancy, a follow-up algorithm was developed to decrease additional imaging without affecting cancer detection. RESULTS. A total of 331/3800 (8.7%) patients (178 men, 153 women; mean age [range], 66 [53-87] years) undergoing LCS had lung findings that were attributed to infection or inflammation. These abnormalities were reported as potentially significant findings using the S modifier in 149/331 (45.0%) and as the dominant nodule used to determine the Lung-RADS category in 96/331 (29.0%). Abnormalities were multiple or multifocal in 260/331 (78.5%). Common descriptors were ground-glass (155/331; 46.8%), tree-in-bud (56/331; 16.9%), consolidation (41/331; 12.4%), and clustered (67/331; 20.2%) opacities. A follow-up chest CT outside of screening was performed within 12 months or less in 264/331 (79.8%) and within 6 months or less in 186/331 (56.2%). A total of 260/331 (78.5%) opacities resolved on follow-up imaging. Two malignancies (2/331; 0.6%) were associated with these abnormalities and both had consolidations. Theoretic adoption of a proposed management algorithm for suspected infectious and inflammatory findings reduced unnecessary follow-up imaging by 82.6% without missing a single malignancy. CONCLUSION. Presumed acute infectious or inflammatory lung abnormalities are frequently encountered in the setting of LCS. These opacities are commonly multifocal and resolve on follow-up. Less than 1% are associated with malignancy. CLINICAL IMPACT. Adoption of a conservative management algorithm can standardize recommendations and reduce unnecessary imaging without increasing the risk of missing a malignancy.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection in a Patient Population with Lung Cancer: Incidence, Presentation, and Alternative Diagnostic Considerations.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections. Symptom overlap between COVID-19 and lung cancer may complicate diagnostic evaluation. We aimed to investigate the incidence, symptoms, differential diagnosis, and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: To determine an at-risk population for COVID-19, we retrospectively identified patients with lung cancer receiving longitudinal care within a single institution in the 12 months (April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020) immediately preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, including an "active therapy population" treated within the last 60 days of this period. Among patients subsequently referred for COVID-19 testing, we compared symptoms, laboratory values, radiographic findings, and outcomes of positive versus negative patients. RESULTS: Between April 1, 2019 and March 31, 2020, a total of 696 patients received longitudinal care, including 406 (58%) in the active therapy population. Among 55 patients referred for COVID-19 testing, 24 (44%) were positive for COVID-19, representing a cumulative incidence of 3.4% (longitudinal population) and 1.5% (active therapy population). Compared with patients who were COVID-19 negative, those who were COVID-19 positive were more likely to have a supplemental oxygen requirement (11% versus 54%, p = 0.005) and to have typical COVID-19 pneumonia imaging findings (5 versus 56%, p = 0.001). Otherwise, there were no marked differences in presenting symptoms. Among patients who were COVID-19 negative, alternative etiologies included treatment-related toxicity (26%), atypical pneumonia (22%), and disease progression (22%). A total of 16 patients positive for COVID-19 (67%) required hospitalization, and seven (29%) died from COVID-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 was infrequent in this lung cancer population, but these patients experienced high rates of morbidity and mortality. Oncologists should maintain a low threshold for COVID-19 testing in patients with lung cancer presenting with acute symptoms.

Digital triage: Novel strategies for population health management in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unique challenges for the U.S. healthcare system due to the staggering mismatch between healthcare system capacity and patient demand. The healthcare industry has been a relatively slow adopter of digital innovation due to the conventional belief that humans need to be at the center of healthcare delivery tasks. However, in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, artificial intelligence (AI) may be used to carry out specific tasks such as pre-hospital triage and enable clinicians to deliver care at scale. Recognizing that the majority of COVID-19 cases are mild and do not require hospitalization, Partners HealthCare (now Mass General Brigham) implemented a digitally-automated pre-hospital triage solution to direct patients to the appropriate care setting before they showed up at the emergency department and clinics, which would otherwise consume resources, expose other patients and staff to potential viral transmission, and further exacerbate supply-and-demand mismatching. Although the use of AI has been well-established in other industries to optimize supply and demand matching, the introduction of AI to perform tasks remotely that were traditionally performed in-person by clinical staff represents a significant milestone in healthcare operations strategy.