Interrater Reliability of NI-RADS on Posttreatment PET/Contrast-enhanced CT Scans in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Purpose: To evaluate the interrater reliability among radiologists examining posttreatment head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) fluorodeoxyglucose PET/contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) scans using Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System (NI-RADS). Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, images in 80 patients with HNSCC who underwent posttreatment surveillance PET/CECT and immediate prior comparison CECT or PET/CECT (from June 2014 to July 2016) were uploaded to the American College of Radiology's cloud-based website, Cortex. Eight radiologists from seven institutions with variable NI-RADS experience independently evaluated each case and assigned an appropriate prose description and NI-RADS category for the primary site and the neck site. Five of these individuals were experienced readers (> 5 years of experience), and three were novices (< 5 years of experience). In total, 640 lexicon-based and NI-RADS categories were assigned to lesions among the 80 included patients by the eight radiologists. Light generalization of Cohen κ for interrater reliability was performed. Results: Of the 80 included patients (mean age, 63 years ± 10 [standard deviation]), there were 58 men (73%); 60 patients had stage IV HNSCC (75%), and the most common tumor location was oropharynx (n = 32; 40%). Light κ for lexicon was 0.30 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.36) at the primary site and 0.31 (95% CI: 0.24, 0.37) at the neck site. Light κ for NI-RADS category was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.63) at the primary site and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.69) at the neck site. Percent agreement between lexicon and correlative NI-RADS category was 84.4% (540 of 640) at the primary site and 92.6% (593 of 640) at the neck site. There was no significant difference in interobserver agreement among the experienced versus novice raters. Conclusion: Moderate agreement was achieved among eight radiologists using NI-RADS at posttreatment HNSCC surveillance imaging

Solve-RD: systematic pan-European data sharing and collaborative analysis to solve rare diseases.

For the first time in Europe hundreds of rare disease (RD) experts team up to actively share and jointly analyse existing patient's data. Solve-RD is a Horizon 2020-supported EU flagship project bringing together >300 clinicians, scientists, and patient representatives of 51 sites from 15 countries. Solve-RD is built upon a core group of four European Reference Networks (ERNs; ERN-ITHACA, ERN-RND, ERN-Euro NMD, ERN-GENTURIS) which annually see more than 270,000 RD patients with respective pathologies. The main ambition is to solve unsolved rare diseases for which a molecular cause is not yet known. This is achieved through an innovative clinical research environment that introduces novel ways to organise expertise and data. Two major approaches are being pursued (i) massive data re-analysis of >19,000 unsolved rare disease patients and (ii) novel combined -omics approaches. The minimum requirement to be eligible for the analysis activities is an inconclusive exome that can be shared with controlled access. The first preliminary data re-analysis has already diagnosed 255 cases form 8393 exomes/genome datasets. This unprecedented degree of collaboration focused on sharing of data and expertise shall identify many new disease genes and enable diagnosis of many so far undiagnosed patients from all over Europe

Solving unsolved rare neurological diseases-a Solve-RD viewpoint.

Funder: Durch Princess Beatrix Muscle Fund Durch Speeren voor Spieren Muscle FundFunder: University of Tübingen Medical Faculty PATE programFunder: European Reference Network for Rare Neurological Diseases | 739510Funder: European Joint Program on Rare Diseases (EJP-RD COFUND-EJP) | 44140962

Twist exome capture allows for lower average sequence coverage in clinical exome sequencing

Background Exome and genome sequencing are the predominant techniques in the diagnosis and research of genetic disorders. Sufficient, uniform and reproducible/consistent sequence coverage is a main determinant for the sensitivity to detect single-nucleotide (SNVs) and copy number variants (CNVs). Here we compared the ability to obtain comprehensive exome coverage for recent exome capture kits and genome sequencing techniques. Results We compared three different widely used enrichment kits (Agilent SureSelect Human All Exon V5, Agilent SureSelect Human All Exon V7 and Twist Bioscience) as well as short-read and long-read WGS. We show that the Twist exome capture significantly improves complete coverage and coverage uniformity across coding regions compared to other exome capture kits. Twist performance is comparable to that of both short- and long-read whole genome sequencing. Additionally, we show that even at a reduced average coverage of 70× there is only minimal loss in sensitivity for SNV and CNV detection. Conclusion We conclude that exome sequencing with Twist represents a significant improvement and could be performed at lower sequence coverage compared to other exome capture techniques

Solving patients with rare diseases through programmatic reanalysis of genome-phenome data.

Funder: EC | EC Seventh Framework Programm | FP7 Health (FP7-HEALTH - Specific Programme "Cooperation": Health); doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/100011272; Grant(s): 305444, 305444Funder: Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness); doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100003329Funder: Generalitat de Catalunya (Government of Catalonia); doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100002809Funder: EC | European Regional Development Fund (Europski Fond za Regionalni Razvoj); doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100008530Funder: Instituto Nacional de Bioinformática ELIXIR Implementation Studies Centro de Excelencia Severo OchoaFunder: EC | EC Seventh Framework Programm | FP7 Health (FP7-HEALTH - Specific Programme "Cooperation": Health)Reanalysis of inconclusive exome/genome sequencing data increases the diagnosis yield of patients with rare diseases. However, the cost and efforts required for reanalysis prevent its routine implementation in research and clinical environments. The Solve-RD project aims to reveal the molecular causes underlying undiagnosed rare diseases. One of the goals is to implement innovative approaches to reanalyse the exomes and genomes from thousands of well-studied undiagnosed cases. The raw genomic data is submitted to Solve-RD through the RD-Connect Genome-Phenome Analysis Platform (GPAP) together with standardised phenotypic and pedigree data. We have developed a programmatic workflow to reanalyse genome-phenome data. It uses the RD-Connect GPAP's Application Programming Interface (API) and relies on the big-data technologies upon which the system is built. We have applied the workflow to prioritise rare known pathogenic variants from 4411 undiagnosed cases. The queries returned an average of 1.45 variants per case, which first were evaluated in bulk by a panel of disease experts and afterwards specifically by the submitter of each case. A total of 120 index cases (21.2% of prioritised cases, 2.7% of all exome/genome-negative samples) have already been solved, with others being under investigation. The implementation of solutions as the one described here provide the technical framework to enable periodic case-level data re-evaluation in clinical settings, as recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics

A Solve-RD ClinVar-based reanalysis of 1522 index cases from ERN-ITHACA reveals common pitfalls and misinterpretations in exome sequencing

Purpose Within the Solve-RD project (https://solve-rd.eu/), the European Reference Network for Intellectual disability, TeleHealth, Autism and Congenital Anomalies aimed to investigate whether a reanalysis of exomes from unsolved cases based on ClinVar annotations could establish additional diagnoses. We present the results of the “ClinVar low-hanging fruit” reanalysis, reasons for the failure of previous analyses, and lessons learned. Methods Data from the first 3576 exomes (1522 probands and 2054 relatives) collected from European Reference Network for Intellectual disability, TeleHealth, Autism and Congenital Anomalies was reanalyzed by the Solve-RD consortium by evaluating for the presence of single-nucleotide variant, and small insertions and deletions already reported as (likely) pathogenic in ClinVar. Variants were filtered according to frequency, genotype, and mode of inheritance and reinterpreted. Results We identified causal variants in 59 cases (3.9%), 50 of them also raised by other approaches and 9 leading to new diagnoses, highlighting interpretation challenges: variants in genes not known to be involved in human disease at the time of the first analysis, misleading genotypes, or variants undetected by local pipelines (variants in off-target regions, low quality filters, low allelic balance, or high frequency). Conclusion The “ClinVar low-hanging fruit” analysis represents an effective, fast, and easy approach to recover causal variants from exome sequencing data, herewith contributing to the reduction of the diagnostic deadlock

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Sinonasal Disease: 2021 Update

This article presents guidelines for initial imaging utilization in patients presenting with sinonasal disease, including acute rhinosinusitis without and with suspected orbital and intracranial complications, chronic rhinosinusitis, suspected invasive fungal sinusitis, suspected sinonasal mass, and suspected cerebrospinal fluid leak. CT and MRI are the primary imaging modalities used to evaluate patients with sinonasal disease. Given its detailed depiction of bony anatomy, CT can accurately demonstrate the presence of sinonasal disease, bony erosions, and anatomic variants, and is essential for surgical planning. Given its superior soft tissue contrast, MRI can accurately identify clinically suspected intracranial and intraorbital complications, delineate soft tissue extension of tumor and distinguish mass from obstructed secretions.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

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of Facial Trauma Following Primary Survey

Maxillofacial trauma patients comprise a significant subset of patients presenting to emergency departments. Before evaluating for facial trauma, an emergency or trauma physician must perform a primary survey to ensure patient stabilization. Following this primary survey, this document discusses the following clinical scenarios for facial trauma: tenderness to palpation or contusion or edema over frontal bone (suspected frontal bone injury); pain with upper jaw manipulation or pain overlying zygoma or zygomatic deformity or facial elongation or malocclusion or infraorbital nerve paresthesia (suspected midface injury); visible nasal deformity or palpable nasal deformity or tenderness to palpation of the nose or epistaxis (suspected nasal bone injury); and trismus or malocclusion or gingival hemorrhage or mucosal hemorrhage or loose teeth or fractured teeth or displaced teeth (suspected mandibular injury). 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