RESUMO
PURPOSE: After adolescence, asthma is more frequent in females than in males due to different hormonal, immunologic, and occupational/environmental factors. The higher prevalence and severity of the disease in females have already been reported in international registries. The aim of this study was to explore the difference in terms of clinical, functional, and biological characteristics between male and female patients with severe asthma in a real-life, registry-based setting. METHODS: Baseline data from the Severe Asthma Network in Italy registry were analyzed in 1,123 patients with severe asthma, according to sex. RESULTS: Almost 2/3 of severe asthmatics were female. Late-onset asthma, obesity and gastro-esophageal reflux were more frequent in females than in males, while previous smoking habits and nasal polyposis were more frequent in males. Females had poor asthma control and a higher number of severe exacerbations leading to hospitalization, in comparison to males. Biomarkers of type 2 inflammation (blood eosinophil, exhaled nitric oxide, and serum immunoglobulin E levels) were significantly higher in males than in females. The type 2 profile (defined by a combination of these 3 biomarkers) was significantly more frequent in males than in females. In multivariate analysis, late-onset asthma and a normal body mass index were only independent variables associated with the type 2 profile, while male sex and age showed only a trend toward the association with the type 2 profile. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences may be observed between male and female patients with severe asthma, influencing the asthma pheno-endotyping in both sexes.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of computer aided diagnosis (CAD) to improve screening mammograms interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six radiologists underwent a screening mammography proficiency test first by conventional, then by CAD assisted reading. Sensitivity and recall rate at conventional and CAD reading were compared. Independent conventional double reading was simulated (15 pair combinations) and compared to single CAD reading. RESULTS: CAD marked 31 of 32 cancers (case-based sensitivity=96.8%). On a film and lesion basis, CAD identified 31 of 32 (96.8%) malignant calcifications and 29 of 42 (69.0%) malignant opacities, the only cancer not identified by CAD being depicted as an isolated opacity. CAD marked 348 areas (153 microcalcifications and 195 opacities) in 88 of 108 non cancer cases, with a case-based specificity of 18.5% (20/108). Considering all six readings, cancer was identified in 164 or 174 of 192 readings (85.4 vs 90.6%, c2 2.03, df=1, p=0.15) and recalls of non-cancer cases were 108 or 159 of 648 readings (16.6 vs 24.5%, c2 11.7, df=1, p<0.001) at conventional or CAD reading, respectively. CAD reading (average of 6 readings, 192 cancer, 648 non-cancer readings) was slightly, non significantly less sensitive (sensitivity 90.6 vs 92.9%, c2 0.73, df=1, p=0.39) and slightly, but not significantly more specific (recall rate 24.5 vs 26.1%, c2 0.56, df=1, p=0.45) as compared to simulated independent double reading (average of 15 combinations, 480 cancer, 1620 non-cancer readings). CONCLUSION: CAD seems to allow for a limited absolute increase (+5.2%) in sensitivity and for a limited absolute increase (+7.9%) in recall rate, the latter difference only reaching statistical significance. CAD reading showed no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy as compared to conventional (simulated) double reading, although further studies are needed to confirm it as possible alternative to double reading in the current screening practice.