Clinical impact of molecular breast imaging as adjunct diagnostic modality in evaluation of indeterminate breast abnormalities and unresolved diagnostic concerns

Purpose Improvements in molecular breast imaging (MBI) have increased the use of MBI as adjunct diagnostic modality and alternative to MRI. We aimed to assess the value of MBI in patients with equivocal breast lesions on conventional imaging, especially in terms of its ability to rule out malignancy. Methods We selected patients who underwent MBI in addition to conventional diagnostics due to equivocal breast lesions between 2012 and 2015. All patients underwent digital mammography, target ultrasound and MBI. MBI was performed using a single-head Dilon 6800 gamma camera after administration of 600 MBq 99mTc-sestamibi. Imaging was reported according to BI-RADS classification and compared with pathology or follow-up of ≥6 months. Results Of 226 women included, pathology was obtained in 106 (47%) and (pre)malignant lesions were found in 25 (11%). Median follow-up was 5.4 years (IQR 3.9-7.1). Sensitivity was higher for MBI compared to conventional diagnostics (84% vs. 32%; P = 0.002), identifying malignancy in 21 and 6 patients, respectively, but specificity did not differ (86% vs. 81%; P = 0.161). Positive and negative predictive value were 43% and 98% for MBI and 17% and 91% for conventional diagnostics. MBI was discordant with conventional diagnostics in 68 (30%) patients and correctly changed diagnosis in 46 (20%) patients, identifying 15 malignant lesions. In subgroups with nipple discharge (N = 42) and BI-RADS 3 lesions (N = 113) MBI detected 7 of 8 occult malignancies. Conclusion MBI correctly adjusted treatment in 20% of patients with diagnostic concerns after conventional work-up, and could rule out malignancy with a high negative predictive value of 98%.</p

Rapid Response to Remdesivir in Hospitalised COVID-19 Patients:A Propensity Score Weighted Multicentre Cohort Study

Introduction: Remdesivir is a registered treatment for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 that has moderate clinical effectiveness. Anecdotally, some patients’ respiratory insufficiency seemed to recover particularly rapidly after initiation of remdesivir. In this study, we investigated if this rapid improvement was caused by remdesivir, and which patient characteristics might predict a rapid clinical improvement in response to remdesivir. Methods: This was a multicentre observational cohort study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen and were treated with dexamethasone. Rapid clinical improvement in response to treatment was defined by a reduction of at least 1 L of supplemental oxygen per minute or discharge from the hospital within 72 h after admission. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted logistic regression modelling was used to assess the association between remdesivir and rapid clinical improvement. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality, ICU admission rate and hospitalisation duration. Results: Of 871 patients included, 445 were treated with remdesivir. There was no influence of remdesivir on the occurrence of rapid clinical improvement (62% vs 61% OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79–1.40; p = 0.76). The in-hospital mortality was lower (14.7% vs 19.8% OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48–1.02; p = 0.06) for the remdesivir-treated patients. Rapid clinical improvement occurred more often in patients with low C-reactive protein (≤ 75 mg/L) and short duration of symptoms prior to hospitalisation (&lt; 7 days) (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.07–7.56). Conclusion: Remdesivir generally does not increase the incidence of rapid clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but it might have an effect in patients with short duration of symptoms and limited signs of systemic inflammation.</p