Image analysis in posttreatment non-small cell lung cancer surveillance: specialists' interpretations reviewed by the thoracic multidisciplinary tumor board.

BACKGROUND: Data show that the initial specialist's image interpretation and final multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) assessment can vary substantially in the pretherapeutic cancer setting. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate the concordance of the specialist's and MTB's image interpretations in patients undergoing systematic posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance. METHODS: In the initial prospective study, lung cancer patients who had received curative-intent treatment were randomly assigned to undergo either contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) or integrated 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT). Imaging was performed every 6 months for 2 years, and all imaging studies were finally assessed by our MTB. This post hoc analysis assessed differences between the initial specialist's image interpretation and the final MTB's image interpretation. RESULTS: In 89 patients, 266 imaging studies (129 PET-CT, 137 CE-CT) were analyzed. In 87.2% (88.4, 86.1%) of the studies, complete concordance was found. Out of the 12.8% (11.6, 13.9%) with discordant results, 7.5% (6.9, 8.0%) had implications for alterations in patient management (major disagreements).Twenty major disagreements were detected in 17 study patients. Retrospectively, in eight out of these 17 (47%) patients, in contrast to the MTB's view, the specialist's interpretation was more appropriate, whereas in nine out of 17 patients (53%), the MTB's interpretation was more accurate. CONCLUSIONS: In an experienced MTB, the agreement between imaging specialists and the rest of the MTB with regard to the interpretation of images is high in a setting of posttreatment lung cancer image surveillance. It seems that in cases of disagreements, the rates of more accurate interpretation are well balanced between imaging specialists and the MTB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16281786, Date 23. February 2017.

Correlation Between Sonographic and In Vivo Measurement of A1 Pulleys in Trigger Fingers.

The thickness of 210 A1 pulleys of 21 male and female healthy volunteers in two different age groups (20-35 y and 50-70 y) were measured by ultrasound. In a second group, the thickness of 15 diseased A1 pulleys and 15 A1 pulleys of the corresponding other hand of 10 patients with the clinical diagnosis of trigger finger were measured by ultrasound. During open trigger finger release, a strip of A1 pulley was excised and immediately measured using an electronic caliper. The average pulley thickness of healthy volunteers was 0.43-0.47 mm, compared to 0.77-0.79 mm in patients with trigger finger. Based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, a diagnostic cut-off value of the pulley thickness at 0.62 mm was defined in order to differ a trigger finger from a healthy finger (sensitivity and specificity of 85%). The correlation between sonographic and effective intra-operative measurements of pulley thickness was linear and very strong (Pearson coefficient 0.86-0.90). In order to distinguish between healthy and diseased A1 pulleys, 0.62 mm is a simple value to use, which can be applied regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and height in adults.