Inter-observer Variability in the Analysis of CO-RADS Classification for COVID-19 Patients.

During the early stages of the pandemic, computed tomography (CT) of the chest, along with serological and clinical data, was frequently utilized in diagnosing COVID-19, particularly in regions facing challenges such as shortages of PCR kits. In these circumstances, CT scans played a crucial role in diagnosing COVID-19 and guiding patient management. The COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) was established as a standardized reporting system for cases of COVID-19 pneumonia. Its implementation necessitates a high level of agreement among observers to prevent any potential confusion. This study aimed to assess the inter-observer agreement between physicians from different specialties with variable levels of experience in their CO-RADS scoring of CT chests for confirmed COVID-19 patients, and to assess the feasibility of applying this reporting system to those having little experience with it. All chest CT images of patients with positive RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 were retrospectively reviewed by seven observers. The observers were divided into three groups according to their type of specialty (three radiologists, three house officers, and one pulmonologist). The observers assessed each image and categorized the patients into five CO-RADS groups. A total of 630 participants were included in this study. The inter-observer agreement was almost perfect among the radiologists, substantial among a pulmonologist and the house officers, and moderate-to-substantial among the radiologists, the pulmonologist, and the house officers. There was substantial to almost perfect inter-observer agreement when reporting using the CO-RADS among observers with different experience levels. Although the inter-observer variability among the radiologists was high, it decreased compared to the pulmonologist and house officers. Radiologists, house officers, and pulmonologists applying the CO-RADS can accurately and promptly identify typical CT imaging features of lung involvement in COVID-19.

Comparison of the CO-RADS and the RSNA chest CT classification system concerning sensitivity and reliability for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) recently published a chest CT classification system and Dutch Association for Radiology has announced Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reporting and data system (CO-RADS) to provide guidelines to radiologists who interpret chest CT images of patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. This study aimed to compare CO-RADS and RSNA classification with respect to their sensitivity and reliability for diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. RESULTS: A retrospective study assessed consecutive CT chest imaging of 359 COVID-19-positive patients. Three experienced radiologists who were aware of the final diagnosis of all patients, independently categorized each patient according to CO-RADS and RSNA classification. RT-PCR test performed within one week of chest CT scan was used as a reference standard for calculating sensitivity of each system. Kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficient were used to assess reliability of each system. The study group included 359 patients (180 men, 179 women; mean age, 45 ± 16.9 years). Considering combination of CO-RADS 3, 4 and 5 and combination of typical and indeterminate RSNA categories as positive predictors for COVID-19 diagnosis, the overall sensitivity was the same for both classification systems (72.7%). Applying both systems in moderate and severe/critically ill patients resulted in a significant increase in sensitivity (94.7% and 97.8%, respectively). The overall inter-reviewer agreement was excellent for CO-RADS (κ = 0.801), and good for RSNA classification (κ = 0.781). CONCLUSION: CO-RADS and RSNA chest CT classification systems are comparable in diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia with similar sensitivity and reliability.

Old Treatment for a New Disease: Can Rectal Ozone Insufflation Be Used for COVID-19 Management? A Case Report.

COVID-19 is a newly discovered deadly disease with no proven definitive treatment until now. It is now proved that it can affect different body organs which necessitate intensive care management. Ozone (O3) therapy was used before for treating various viral infections like hepatitis B, human immune deficiency virus (HIV), and Ebola viruses. O3 also can manage hypoxia and increase tissue oxygenation, besides its anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties which may have an important role in the management of cytokine storm. We used rectal O3 insufflation therapy assuming that it may have a beneficial role in the management of COVID-19 disease. Two sessions of rectal O3 therapy were given to a 60-year-old female patient who was confirmed COVID-19 positive. Before applying O3 therapy, she was hypoxic (sPO2:90%) despite mechanical ventilation with high fraction inspired oxygen (FiO2:90%). After therapy, she was markedly improved and discharged to the inpatient ward and then discharged home on day 10 post-admission. Another 40-year-old male patient who was confirmed COVID-19 positive and was home isolated received one session of O3 therapy. Before therapy, he was hypoxic (sPO2:85% on room air and 95% with O2 face mask 5 L/min). The patient showed gradual improvement over the next 3 days after therapy and becomes oxygen-independent (sPO2 became 94-97% on room air). No adverse effects were noticed in both cases. Rectal O3 insufflation can be used safely as adjuvant management for patients with COVID-19 disease.

The validity, reliability, and reviewer acceptance of VI-RADS in assessing muscle invasion by bladder cancer: a multicenter prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess diagnostic validity and reliability of VI-RADS in predicting muscle invasion by bladder cancer (BCa) and evaluate reviewer acceptance of VI-RADS for clinical routine. METHODS: A prospective multicenter study enrolled 331 patients with suspected/untreated BCa who underwent preoperative multiparametric MRI examination (mp-MRI) of the urinary bladder. Four experienced radiologists independently evaluated all mp-MRI using VI-RADS. The diagnostic validity of VI-RADS for predicting muscle invasion by BCa was calculated using histopathology of the first transurethral resection bladder tumor (TURBT) and second TURBT as the reference standards. The kappa statistics (κ) were applied to assess the interreader agreement (IRA). Reviewer acceptance was evaluated with questionnaires. RESULTS: The risk of muscle invasion in VI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 after the first and second TURBT was 21.8%, 45.8%, 69.6%, and 96.4% and 24.4%, 58.3%, 87%, and 99.2%, respectively. The overall diagnostic validity of VI-RADS was high. The optimal cut-off value for predicting muscle invasion after first TURBT was > VI-RADS 3 (sensitivity = 84.1% and specificity = 92.3%), and after second TURBT was > VI-RADS 2 (sensitivity = 89.9% and specificity = 90.1%). VI-RADS categorization showed a very good IRA (κ = 0.93). Reviewers fully agreed with the statement, "The application of structured reporting of bladder tumor should be encouraged" (score = 20). CONCLUSIONS: VI-RADS showed high diagnostic validity and reliability for predicting muscle invasion by BCa, especially VI-RADS 4 and 5. However, VI-RADS 2 and 3 require further modifications to enhance their diagnostic validity. VI-RADS is highly encouraged to be used in daily practice. KEY POINTS: • VI-RADS showed high diagnostic validity and reliability in predicting BCa muscle invasion, especially VI-RADS 4 and 5. • In VI-RADS 2 and 3, we observed a notable percentage of BCa with muscle invasion and this would require further modifications to enhance the diagnostic validity for these scores. • Overall VI-RADS is well-accepted by radiologists who recommend it for daily practice.

Validity and Reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring System in the Diagnosis of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate adnexal masses (AM) signifies a major challenge in clinical practice. Early detection and characterization have increased the need for accurate imaging evaluation before treatment. PURPOSE: To assess the validity and reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring system in the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate AM. STUDY TYPE: A prospective multicenter study. POPULATION: In all, 531 women (mean age, 44 ± 11.2 years; range, 21-79 years) with 572 sonographically indeterminate AM. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T/precontrast T1 -weighted imaging (WI) fast spin echo (FSE) (in-phase and out-of-phase, with and without fat suppression); T2 -WI FSE; diffusion-WI single-shot echo planner with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm2 ; and dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion T1 -WI liver acquisition with volume acceleration (LAVA). ASSESSMENT: All MRI examinations were evaluated by three radiologists, and the AM were categorized into five scores based on the ADNEX MR Scoring system. Score 1: no AM; 2: benign AM; 3: probably benign AM; 4: indeterminate AM; 5: probably malignant AM. Histopathology and imaging follow-up were used as the standard references for evaluating the validity of the ADNEX MR Scoring system for detecting ovarian malignancy. STATISTICAL TESTS: Four-fold table test, kappa statistics (κ), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: In all, 136 (23.8%) AM were malignant, and 436 (76.2%) were benign. Of the 350 AM classified as score 2, one (0.3%) was malignant; of the 62 AM classified as score 3, six (9.7%) were malignant; of the 73 AM classified as score 4, 43 (58.9%) were malignant; and of the 87 AM categorized as score 5, 86 (98.9%) were malignant. The best cutoff value for predicting malignant AM was score >3 with sensitivity and specificity of 92.9% and 94.9%, respectively. The interreader agreement of the ADNEX MR Scoring was very good (κ = 0.861). DATA CONCLUSION: The current study supports the high validity and reproducibility of the ADNEX MR Scoring system for the diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate AM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.