Stowell, Justin T.

Smooth muscle conditions of the chest have diverse clinical and imaging manifestations and may involve nearly every thoracic structure. Differentiation among these conditions requires the integration of clinical, radiologic, and histopathologic data. Histologic examination in conjunction with immunohistochemistry is essential for differentiation from other spindle cell neoplastic mimics. Familiarity with these entities will ensure the inclusion of smooth muscle conditions in the differential diagnosis of thoracic soft tissue lesions and potentially guide the clinician in appropriate management. We review the clinical, imaging, and histopathologic features of thoracic smooth muscle-related conditions organized by the anatomic structures affected.

Objective: This article reviews the anatomy, histology, and disease processes of pulmonary fissures, with emphasis on clinical implications of accessory and incomplete fissures. Conclusion: Accessory and incomplete pulmonary fissures are often overlooked during routine imaging but can have profound clinical importance. Knowledge of fissure anatomy could improve diagnostic accuracy and inform prognosis for oncologists, interventional pulmonologists, and thoracic surgeons.

Objective To identify factors associated with delayed adherence to follow-up in lung cancer screening. Methods Utilizing a data warehouse and lung cancer screening registry, variables were collected from a referred sample of 3110 unique participants with follow-up CT during the study period (1 January 2016 to 17 October 2018). Adherence was defined as undergoing chest CT within 90 days and 30 days of the recommended time for follow-up and was determined using proportions and multiple variable logistic regression models across the American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS®) categories. Results Of 1954 lung cancer screening participants (51.9% (1014/1954) males, 48.1% (940/1954) female; mean age 65.7 (range 45–87), smoking history median 40 pack-years, 60.2% and 44.5% did not follow-up within 30 and 90 days, respectively. Participants receiving Lung-RADS® category 1 or 2 presented later than those with Lung-RADS® category 3 at 90 days (coefficient −27.24, 95% CI −51.31, −3.16, p = 0.027). Participants with Lung-RADS® category 1 presented later than those with Lung-RADS® category 2 at both 90- and 30-days past due (OR 0.76 95% CI [0.59–0.97], p = 0.029 and OR 0.63 95% CI [0.48–0.83], p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusions Adherence to follow-up was higher among participants receiving more suspicious Lung-RADS® results at index screening CT and among those who had undergone more non-lung cancer screening imaging examinations prior to index lung cancer screening CT. These observations may inform strategies aimed at prospectively identifying participants at risk for delayed or nonadherence to prevent potential morbidity and mortality from incident lung cancers.

Abstract Introduction Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) persons disproportionately face many health disparities including a higher risk of lung cancer. Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose chest computed tomography has reduced lung cancer mortality in eligible high-risk smokers across several large trials, yet utilization of LCS remains low. TGD persons may be less likely to receive recommended cancer screening compared with cisgender populations. We sought to compare eligibility for and utilization of LCS between TGD and cisgender persons in the United States. We also examined if the utilization of LCS varied by smoking status within each gender identity group. Methods We analyzed data from the 2017 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) cross-sectional survey to determine eligibility and utilization of LCS among TGD participants compared with cisgender persons. Logistical regression analysis of potentially confounding variables included age category, race/ethnicity, income, employment status, health insurance, and having a personal doctor. Results Of 37 023 weighted respondents, 0.5% were TGD. Although eligibility for LCS was statistically similar (8.8% TGD vs. 12.2% cisgender) (adjusted odds ratio = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.27–2.39, p = .703), only 2.3% of TGD participants reported obtaining a LCS chest computed tomography versus 17.2% of cisgender participants (adjusted odds ratio = 0.04, 95% confidence interval = 0.01–0.59, p = .019). Smoking status showed no association with LCS utilization among gender identity groups. Conclusions TGD persons may be less likely to receive LCS despite having similar smoking status and eligibility of cisgender persons, suggesting a disparity in utilization of this preventative health service. Implications Targeted efforts to increase LCS utilization and promote smoking cessation for at-risk TGD patients may be warranted.