The Korean Society of Radiology and the Korean Society of Thoracic Radiology have prepared recommendations for the use of diagnostic imaging for COVID-19 in various clinical scenarios. We have tried to grasp the situation in the real world, aggregated opinions from the chest radiologists, and reviewed available references, in order to suggest the most reasonable recommendations possible at this moment. As circumstances change and new evidences emerge, the recommendations should immediately be modified accordingly.

Purpose This study aimed to investigate the optimal threshold value in Hounsfield units (HU) on CT to detect the solid components of pulmonary subsolid nodules using pathologic invasive foci as reference. Materials and Methods Thin-section non-enhanced chest CT scans of 25 patients with pathologically confirmed minimally invasive adenocarcinoma were retrospectively reviewed. On CT images, the solid portion was defined as the area with higher attenuation than various HU thresholds ranging from −600 to −100 HU in 50-HU intervals. The solid portion was measured as the largest diameter on axial images and as the maximum diameter on multiplanar reconstruction images. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate bias in each threshold by using the pathological size of invasive foci as reference. Results At a threshold of −400 HU, the biases were lowest between the largest/maximum diameter of the solid portion of subsolid nodule and the size of invasive foci of the pathological specimen, with 0.388 and −0.0176, respectively. They showed insignificant difference ( p = 0.2682, p = 0.963, respectively) at a threshold of −400 HU. Conclusion For quantitative analysis, −400 HU may be the optimal threshold to define the solid portion of subsolid nodules as a surrogate marker of invasive foci.

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the utility of the 16-cm axial volume scan technique for calculating the coronary artery calcium score (CACS) using non-enhanced chest CT. Materials and Methods This study prospectively enrolled 20 participants who underwent both, non-enhanced chest CT (16-cm-coverage axial volume scan technique) and calcium-score CT, with the same parameters, differing only in slice thickness (in non-enhanced chest CT = 0.625, 1.25, 2.5 mm; in calcium score CT = 2.5 mm). The CACS was calculated using the conventional Agatston method. The difference between the CACS obtained from the two CT scans was compared, and the degree of agreement for the clinical significance of the CACS was confirmed through sectional analysis. Each calcified lesion was classified by location and size, and a one-to-one comparison of non-contrast-enhanced chest CT and calcium score CT was performed. Results The correlation coefficients of the CACS obtained from the two CT scans for slice thickness of 2.5, 1.25, and 0.625 mm were 0.9850, 0.9688, and 0.9834, respectively. The mean differences between the CACS were −21.4% at 0.625 mm, −39.4% at 1.25 mm, and −76.2% at 2.5 mm slice thicknesses. Sectional analysis revealed that 16 (80%), 16 (80%), and 13 (65%) patients showed agreement for the degree of coronary artery disease at each slice interval, respectively. Inter-reader agreement was high for each slice interval. The 0.625 mm CT showed the highest sensitivity for detecting calcified lesions. Conclusion The values in the non-contrast-enhanced chest CT, using the 16-cm axial volume scan technique, were similar to those obtained using the CACS in the calcium score CT, at 0.625 mm slice thickness without electrocardiogram gating. This can ultimately help predict cardiovascular risk without additional radiation exposure.