AIM To report the severity and extent of pulmonary thromboembolic disease (PTD) in COVID-19 patients undergoing computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in a tertiary centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a retrospective analysis of COVID-19 patients undergoing CTPA over a period of 27 days. The presence, extent, and severity of PTD were documented. Two observers scored the pattern and extent of lung parenchymal disease including potential fibrotic features, as well as lymph node enlargement and pleural effusions. Consensus was achieved via a third observer. Interobserver agreement was assessed using kappa statistics. Student's t -test, chi-squared, and Mann–Whitney U -tests were used to compare imaging features between PTD and non-PTD sub-groups. RESULTS During the study period, 100 patients with confirmed COVID-19 underwent CTPA imaging. Ninety-three studies were analysed, excluding indeterminate CTPA examinations. Overall incidence of PTD was 41/93 (44%) with 28/93 patients showing small vessel PTD (30%). D-dimer was elevated in 90/93 (96.8%) cases. A high Wells' score did not differentiate between PTD and non-PTD groups ( p= 0.801). The interobserver agreement was fair (kappa=0.659) for parenchymal patterns and excellent (kappa=0.816) for severity. Thirty-four of the 93 cases (36.6%) had lymph node enlargement; 29/34 (85.3%) showed no additional source of infection. Sixteen of the 93 (17.2%) cases had potential fibrotic features. CONCLUSION There is a high incidence of PTD in COVID-19 patients undergoing CTPA and lack of a risk stratification tool. The present data indicates a higher suspicion of PTD is needed in severe COVID-19 patients. The concomitant presence of possible fibrotic features on CT indicates the need for follow-up.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: The aim was to compare the accuracy of standard supplementary views and GE digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for assessment of soft tissue mammographic abnormalities. Methods: Women recalled for further assessment of soft tissue abnormalities were recruited and received standard supplementary views (typically spot compression views) and two-view GE DBT. The added value of DBT in the assessment process was determined by analysing data collected prospectively by unblinded radiologists working up the cases. Following anonymisation of cases, there was also a retrospective multireader review. The readers first read bilateral standard two-view digital mammography (DM) together with the supplementary mammographic views and gave a combined score for suspicion of malignancy on a fivepoint scale. The same readers then read bilateral standard two-view DM together with two-view DBT. Pathology data were obtained. Differences were assessed using ROC analysis. Results: The study population was 342 lesions in 322 patients. Final diagnosis was malignant in 113 cases (33%) and benign/normal in 229 cases (67%). In the prospective analysis, the performance of two-view DM plus DBT was at least equivalent to the performance of two-view DM and standard mammographic supplementary views-area under the curve (AUC) was 0.946 and 0.922 respectively, which did not reach statistical significance. Similar results were obtained for the retrospective review-AUC was 0.900 (DBT) and 0.873 (supplementary views), which did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The accuracy of GE DBT in the assessment of screendetected soft tissue abnormalities is equivalent to the use of standard supplementary mammographic views.

Introduction: The aim was to compare the accuracy of standard supplementary views and GE digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for assessment of soft tissue mammographic abnormalities. Methods: Women recalled for further assessment of soft tissue abnormalities were recruited and received standard supplementary views (typically spot compression views) and two-view GE DBT. The added value of DBT in the assessment process was determined by analysing data collected prospectively by unblinded radiologists working up the cases. Following anonymisation of cases, there was also a retrospective multireader review. The readers first read bilateral standard two-view digital mammography (DM) together with the supplementary mammographic views and gave a combined score for suspicion of malignancy on a fivepoint scale. The same readers then read bilateral standard two-view DM together with two-view DBT. Pathology data were obtained. Differences were assessed using ROC analysis. Results: The study population was 342 lesions in 322 patients. Final diagnosis was malignant in 113 cases (33%) and benign/normal in 229 cases (67%). In the prospective analysis, the performance of two-view DM plus DBT was at least equivalent to the performance of two-view DM and standard mammographic supplementary views-area under the curve (AUC) was 0.946 and 0.922 respectively, which did not reach statistical significance. Similar results were obtained for the retrospective review-AUC was 0.900 (DBT) and 0.873 (supplementary views), which did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The accuracy of GE DBT in the assessment of screendetected soft tissue abnormalities is equivalent to the use of standard supplementary mammographic views.