Background CT chest severity score (CTSS) is a semi-quantitative measure done to correlate the severity of the pulmonary involvement on the CT with the severity of the disease. The objectives of this study are to describe chest CT criteria and CTSS of the COVID-19 infection in pediatric oncology patients, to find a cut-off value of CTSS that can differentiate mild COVID-19 cases that can be managed at home and moderate to severe cases that need hospital care. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 64 pediatric oncology patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection between 1 April and 30 November 2020. They were classified clinically into mild, moderate, and severe groups. CT findings were evaluated for lung involvement and CTSS was calculated and range from 0 (clear lung) to 20 (all lung lobes were affected). Results Overall, 89% of patients had hematological malignancies and 92% were under active oncology treatment. The main CT findings were ground-glass opacity (70%) and consolidation patches (62.5%). In total, 85% of patients had bilateral lung involvement, ROC curve  showed that the area under the curve of CTSS for diagnosing severe type was 0.842 (95% CI 0.737–0.948). The CTSS cut-off of 6.5 had 90.9% sensitivity and 69% specificity, with 41.7% positive predictive value (PPV) and 96.9% negative predictive value (NPV). According to the Kaplan–Meier analysis, mortality risk was higher in patients with CT score > 7 than in those with CTSS < 7. Conclusion Pediatric oncology patients, especially those with hematological malignancies, are more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. Chest CT severity score > 6.5 (about 35% lung involvement) can be used as a predictor of the need for hospitalization.

Despite routine screening of patients for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms and signs at hospital entrances, patients may slip between the cracks and be incidentally discovered to have lung findings that could indicate COVID-19 infection on imaging obtained for other reasons. Multiple case reports and case series have been published to identify the pattern of this highly infectious disease. This article addresses the radiographic findings in different imaging modalities that may be incidentally seen in asymptomatic patients who carry COVID-19. In general, findings of COVID-19 infection may appear in computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography-CT, ultrasound, or plain X-rays that show lung or only apical or basal cuts. The identification of these characteristics by radiologists and clinicians is crucial because this would help in the early recognition of cases so that a rapid treatment protocol can be established, the immediate isolation to reduce community transmission, and the organization of close monitoring. Thus, it is important to both the patient and the physician that these findings are highlighted and reported.

Background There are some limitations using the different sequences of clinical cardiac magnetic resonance (cardiac MR) in detection of edema in patients presenting with acute myocardial injury. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the myocardial segmental agreement between the different edema sequences: T2 mapping and turbo inversion recovery magnitude (TIRM) in detection of acute myocardial edema. Results Thirty-seven patients presented with acute infarction were sent to cardiac MR to assess myocardial edema. All cardiac MR studies were scanned using cine, TIRM, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in short axis views (SAX). Position of the T2 mapping slices were copied from the TIRM. The left ventricle (LV) was divided into apical, mid, and basal segments per visualization of the papillary muscles. Edema mass was assessed separately in each segment as well as the total edema mass in both the TIRM and T2 mapping. Twenty-four patients of whom 12.5% had multi-territorial coronary lesions and edema were assessed. Myocardial edema was not assessed in thirteen patients (35%) due to significant intra myocardial hemorrhage (T2 mapping < 60 ms). No statistical significance was found between the TIRM and the T2 mapping neither in the total amount of edema (p = 0.79), nor in the LV basal, mid, and apical segments’ edema (p = 0.69, 0.5, and 0.8 respectively). The upper and lower limits of agreements were tested between the TIRM and the T2 mapping of total edema mass, basal segments, mid, and apical ventricular segments were = 18 and − 7.7 g, 11.3 and − 5.1 g, 12.3 and − 5.2 g, and 15.5 and − 7.8 g respectively. Conclusion This study supports the proof of the principle that there is no statistical significant difference per myocardial segments between the T2 mapping and routine edema’s sequences. Larger studies are recommended to assess the impact in clinical outcome.

No abstract