Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:Different subtypes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are associated with different patterns of metastatic spread. Anatomic location of lesions in the chest may influence patterns of cancer growth and the shrinkage to therapy. Consequently, lesion location could affect apparent response rates per RECIST. We sought to explore this and develop, as needed, treatment response assessments less affected by the location. METHODS:Cases of advanced oncogene-addicted NSCLC (EGFR, ALK, and ROS1) with pre- and on-therapy imaging during initial targeted therapy were identified. Lesions located in the lung parenchyma, pleural space or intra-thoracic lymph nodes were identified and analyzed separately from each other by RECIST 1.1 (unidimensional measurements) and by a novel MAX methodology (bidimensional measurements) which takes the axis with the greatest absolute percentage change on therapy in each location as the representative measurement. RESULTS:Three hundred three patients with 446 unidimensional measured lesions were included for RECIST analysis. Two hundred forty nine patients with 386 bidimensional measured lesions were included for MAX analysis, as well as the analysis comparing RECIST and MAX. Intrathoracic location significantly impacted percentage shrinkage and the response rate per RECIST. The response rates for pleural, intra-parenchymal and nodal lesions were 34.1%, 49.6%, and 68.3%, respectively (P = .0002). The MAX methodology both increased the apparent treatment effect and made it consistent between intrathoracic locations. For pleural, parenchymal and nodal lesions, the MAX calculated response rate were 83.7%, 72.2%, and 75.4%, respectively (P-value = .24). CONCLUSION:Intrathoracic lesion location affects RECIST-based treatment effectiveness estimations. The MAX methodology neutralizes location effect when examining impact of treatment and should be explored further.

When discussing cystic lung diseases, a certain group of diseases tends to receive the majority of attention. Other less frequently discussed cystic lung diseases are also important causes of morbidity in patients. Etiologies include genetic syndromes, lymphoproliferative diseases, infections, exogenous exposures, and a developmental abnormality. This review article focuses on the clinical and imaging features of these other cystic lung diseases.

Chest pain is a common reason that patients may present for evaluation in both ambulatory and emergency department settings, and is often of musculoskeletal origin in the former. Chest wall syndrome collectively describes the various entities that can contribute to chest wall pain of musculoskeletal origin and may affect any chest wall structure. Various imaging modalities may be employed for the diagnosis of nontraumatic chest wall conditions, each with variable utility depending on the clinical scenario. We review the evidence for or against use of various imaging modalities for the diagnosis of nontraumatic chest wall pain. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Diffuse lung disease, frequently referred to as interstitial lung disease, encompasses numerous disorders affecting the lung parenchyma. The potential etiologies of diffuse lung disease are broad with several hundred established clinical syndromes and pathologies currently identified. Imaging plays a critical role in diagnosis and follow-up of many of these diseases, although multidisciplinary discussion is the current standard for diagnosis of several DLDs. This document aims to establish guidelines for evaluation of diffuse lung diseases for 1) initial imaging of suspected diffuse lung disease, 2) initial imaging of suspected acute exacerbation or acute deterioration in cases of confirmed diffuse lung disease, and 3) clinically indicated routine follow-up of confirmed diffuse lung disease without acute deterioration. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Mediastinal masses can present with symptoms, signs, and syndromes or incidentally. Selecting the appropriate diagnostic imaging study for mediastinal mass evaluation requires awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the various imaging modalities with regard to tissue characterization, soft tissue contrast, and surveillance. This publication expounds on the differences between chest radiography, CT, PET/CT, ultrasound, and MRI in terms of their ability to decipher and surveil mediastinal masses. Making the optimal imaging choice can yield diagnostic specificity, avert unnecessary biopsy and surgery, guide the interventionist when necessary, and serve as a means of surveillance for probably benign, but indeterminate mediastinal masses. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.