To determine if wedge resection is equivalent to lobectomy for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) and to evaluate the impact of radiologic and pathologic variables not available in large national databases. Records were reviewed from 2010-2016 for patients with pathologic Stage I NSCLC who underwent wedge resection or lobectomy. Propensity score matching was performed on pre-operative variables and patients with ≥1 lymph node removed. Clinical variables were compared. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models for 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free (DFS), and locoregional-recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were created. A total of 1086 patients met inclusion criteria; 391 lobectomies and 695 wedge resections. Propensity score matching yielded 167 pairs of lobectomy and wedge resection patients. Complications were fewer for wedge resections than lobectomies, 19.2% for wedge resection patients vs 34.1% for lobectomy patients, p < 0.01. OS was equivalent between groups, 86.2% for lobectomy patients vs 83.4% for wedge resection patients p = 0.47. DFS was similar, 79.0% for lobectomy patients vs 72.5% for wedge resection patients p = 0.10. Overall LRFS was worse in wedge resection patients vs lobectomy patients, 82.0% vs 93.4% p < 0.01. However, in the matched wedge resection patients with a margin >10 mm the LRFS was equal to that of lobectomy patients, 86.4% for wedge resection patients vs 91.8% for lobectomy patients p = 0.140. Patients with Stage I NSCLC can experience similar OS, DFS, and LRFS with wedge resection as compared to lobectomy, when wedge resection margins are >10 mm and appropriate lymph node dissection is performed.
Publications
2022
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Our purpose is to understand patient preferences towards contrast-enhanced imaging such as CEM or MRI for breast cancer screening.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous survey was offered to all patients having screening mammography at a single academic institution from December 27 th 2019 to March 6 th 2020. Survey questions related to: (1) patients' background experiences (2) patients' concern for aspects of MRI and CEM measured using a 5-point Likert scale, and (3) financial considerations.
RESULTS: 75% (1011/1349) patients completed the survey. 53.0% reported dense breasts and of those, 47.6% had additional screening. 49.6% had experienced a callback, 29.0% had a benign biopsy, and 13.7% had prior CEM/MRI. 34.7% were satisfied with mammography for screening. A majority were neutral or not concerned with radiation exposure, contrast allergy, IV line placement, claustrophobia, and false positive exams. 54.7% were willing to pay at least $250-500 for screening MRI. Those reporting dense breasts were less satisfied with mammography for screening (p<0.001) and willing to pay more for MRI (p<0.001). If patients had prior CEM/MRI, there was less concern for an allergic reaction (p<0.001), IV placement (p=0.025), and claustrophobia (p=0.006). There was less concern for false positives if they had a prior benign biopsy (p=0.029) or prior CEM/MRI (p=0.005) and less concern for IV placement if they had dense breasts (p=0.007) or a previous callback (p=0.013).
CONCLUSION: The screening population may accept CEM or MRI as a screening exam despite its risks and cost, especially patients with dense breasts and patients who have had prior CEM/MRI.
Abdominal radiology as a field has historically played an important role in the training, research, and performance of image-guided procedures. With the emphasis on increased subspecialization and the more formal and rigorous interventional radiology training programs, the question of the future of image-guided procedures within abdominal radiology is explored. A survey conducted by the Cross-Sectional Interventional Radiology Emerging Technology Commission on members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology showed that image-guided procedures are overwhelmingly being performed by abdominal radiology groups, and the vast majority of programs are training their fellows in this regard. We explore some of the challenges radiology and health care in general may face should abdominal radiologists no longer perform procedures and outline strategies departments can employ to meet the needs of both abdominal and interventional radiologists.
To determine if wedge resection is equivalent to lobectomy for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) and to evaluate the impact of radiologic and pathologic variables not available in large national databases. Records were reviewed from 2010-2016 for patients with pathologic Stage I NSCLC who underwent wedge resection or lobectomy. Propensity score matching was performed on pre-operative variables and patients with ≥1 lymph node removed. Clinical variables were compared. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models for 5-year overall survival (OS), disease-free (DFS), and locoregional-recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were created. A total of 1086 patients met inclusion criteria; 391 lobectomies and 695 wedge resections. Propensity score matching yielded 167 pairs of lobectomy and wedge resection patients. Complications were fewer for wedge resections than lobectomies, 19.2% for wedge resection patients vs 34.1% for lobectomy patients, p < 0.01. OS was equivalent between groups, 86.2% for lobectomy patients vs 83.4% for wedge resection patients p = 0.47. DFS was similar, 79.0% for lobectomy patients vs 72.5% for wedge resection patients p = 0.10. Overall LRFS was worse in wedge resection patients vs lobectomy patients, 82.0% vs 93.4% p < 0.01. However, in the matched wedge resection patients with a margin >10 mm the LRFS was equal to that of lobectomy patients, 86.4% for wedge resection patients vs 91.8% for lobectomy patients p = 0.140. Patients with Stage I NSCLC can experience similar OS, DFS, and LRFS with wedge resection as compared to lobectomy, when wedge resection margins are >10 mm and appropriate lymph node dissection is performed.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Our purpose is to understand patient preferences towards contrast-enhanced imaging such as CEM or MRI for breast cancer screening.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous survey was offered to all patients having screening mammography at a single academic institution from December 27 th 2019 to March 6 th 2020. Survey questions related to: (1) patients' background experiences (2) patients' concern for aspects of MRI and CEM measured using a 5-point Likert scale, and (3) financial considerations.
RESULTS: 75% (1011/1349) patients completed the survey. 53.0% reported dense breasts and of those, 47.6% had additional screening. 49.6% had experienced a callback, 29.0% had a benign biopsy, and 13.7% had prior CEM/MRI. 34.7% were satisfied with mammography for screening. A majority were neutral or not concerned with radiation exposure, contrast allergy, IV line placement, claustrophobia, and false positive exams. 54.7% were willing to pay at least $250-500 for screening MRI. Those reporting dense breasts were less satisfied with mammography for screening (p<0.001) and willing to pay more for MRI (p<0.001). If patients had prior CEM/MRI, there was less concern for an allergic reaction (p<0.001), IV placement (p=0.025), and claustrophobia (p=0.006). There was less concern for false positives if they had a prior benign biopsy (p=0.029) or prior CEM/MRI (p=0.005) and less concern for IV placement if they had dense breasts (p=0.007) or a previous callback (p=0.013).
CONCLUSION: The screening population may accept CEM or MRI as a screening exam despite its risks and cost, especially patients with dense breasts and patients who have had prior CEM/MRI.
Abdominal radiology as a field has historically played an important role in the training, research, and performance of image-guided procedures. With the emphasis on increased subspecialization and the more formal and rigorous interventional radiology training programs, the question of the future of image-guided procedures within abdominal radiology is explored. A survey conducted by the Cross-Sectional Interventional Radiology Emerging Technology Commission on members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology showed that image-guided procedures are overwhelmingly being performed by abdominal radiology groups, and the vast majority of programs are training their fellows in this regard. We explore some of the challenges radiology and health care in general may face should abdominal radiologists no longer perform procedures and outline strategies departments can employ to meet the needs of both abdominal and interventional radiologists.
OBJECTIVE: To implement and evaluate outcomes from a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary debulking program in the United States.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Interest in and access to surgical treatment for chronic lymphedema (LE) in the United States have increased in recent years, yet there remains little attention on liposuction, or debulking, as an effective treatment option. In some other countries, debulking is a common procedure for the surgical treatment of LE, is covered by insurance, and has demonstrated excellent, reproducible outcomes. In this study we describe our experience implementing a debulking technique from Sweden in the United States.
METHODS: Patients who presented with chronic LE followed a systematic multi-disciplinary work-up. For debulking with power assisted liposuction, the surgical protocol was modeled after that developed by Håkan Brorson. A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent debulking at our institution was conducted.
RESULTS: Between December 2017 and January 2020, 39 patients underwent 41 debulking procedures with power assisted liposuction, including 23 upper and 18 lower extremities. Mean patient age was 58 years and 85% of patients had LE secondary to cancer, the majority of which (64%) was breast cancer. Patients experienced excess volume reductions of 116% and 115% in the upper and lower extremities, respectively, at 1 year postoperatively. Overall quality of life (LYMQOL) improved by a mean of 33%. Finally, patients reported a decreased incidence of cellulitis and decreased reliance on conservative therapy modalities postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Debulking with power assisted liposuction is an effective treatment for patients with chronic extremity LE. The operation addresses patient goals and improves quality of life, and additionally reduces extremity volumes, infection rates and reliance on outpatient therapy. A comprehensive, multi-disciplinary debulking program can be successfully implemented in the United States healthcare system.
2021
BACKGROUND: The perceived acuity of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) impacts the management of patients, both within emergent and outpatient/urgent settings. Morphology enabled dipole inversion (MEDI) quantitative susceptibility imaging (QSM) has improved characterization of ICH acuity, despite outstanding limitations in distinguishing blood products.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: Using improved susceptibility quantification, novel postprocessing QSM method from multiecho complex total field inversion (mcTFI) may better discriminate between acute and subacute ICH, compared to MEDI.
STUDY TYPE: Retrospective cohort study.
SUBJECTS: A total of 121 subjects enrolled following positive computerized tomography (CT) findings for ICH. Subjects were grouped based on time between admission and MR imaging: hyperacute (<24 hours), acute (1-3 days), early subacute (3-7 days), and late subacute (7-18 days).
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A multiecho gradient echo sequence at 3.0 T was paired with clinical noncontrast CT imaging.
ASSESSMENT: A quantitative index (CTindex ) was derived based on relative intensities of blood on noncontrast CT. All images were co-registered, from which QSM parameters within the ICH area were assessed across groups, as well as the correlation with CTindex .
STATISTICAL TESTS: Group differences were assessed using ANOVAs. Linear regressions between the CTindex , MEDI, and mcTFI measurements were used to assess their relationships. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 21 hyperacute, 72 acute, 21 early subacute, and 7 late-subacute patients were included in this analysis. Significant changes in blood susceptibility were found over time for the MEDI and mcTFI, although mcTFI better differentiated the hyperacute/acute from subacute stages. CTindex values within the ICH were more strongly correlated with mcTFI QSM (r = 0.727) than MEDI (r = 0.412) QSM.
DATA CONCLUSION: McTFI susceptibility estimation demonstrated better correlation with ICH acuity as suggested by CT, providing an improved method to assess acuity of intracranial blood products in clinical settings to identify cases that may require acute intervention.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic contribution of contrast-enhanced 3D STIR (ce3D-SS) high-resolution magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of peripheral nerve pathology relative to conventional 2D sequences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, two radiologists reviewed 60 MR neurography studies with nerve pathology findings. The diagnostic contribution of ce3D-SS imaging was scored on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = no additional information, 2 = supports interpretation, 3 = moderate additional information, and 4 = diagnosis not possible without ce3D-SS). Image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were also assessed for both standard 2D neurography and ce3D-SS sequences utilizing a 3-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics are reported.
RESULTS: The diagnostic contribution score for ce3D-SS imaging was 2.25 for the brachial plexus, 1.50 for extremities, and 1.75 for the lumbosacral plexus. For brachial plexus, the mean consensus scores for image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were 2.55, 2.5, and 2.55 for 2D and 2.35, 2.45, and 2.45 for 3D. For extremities, the mean consensus scores for image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were 2.60, 2.80, and 2.70 for 2D and 1.8, 2.20, and 2.10 for 3D. For lumbosacral plexus, the mean consensus scores for image quality, nerve visualization, and detection of nerve pathology were 2.45, 2.75, and 2.65 for 2D and 2.0, 2.45, and 2.25 for 3D.
CONCLUSION: Overall, our study supports the potential application of ce3D-SS imaging for MRN of the brachial plexus but suggests that 2D MRN protocols are sufficient for MRN of the extremities and lumbosacral plexus.