Mark L Munoz1, Noah Lechtzin1, Qing Kay Li2, KoPen Wang3, Lonny B Yarmus3, Hans J Lee3, David J Feller-Kopman3. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In evaluating patients with suspected lung cancer, it is important to not only obtain a tissue diagnosis, but also to obtain enough tissue for both histologic and molecular analysis in order to appropriately stage the patient with a safe and efficient strategy. The diagnostic approach may often be dependent on local resources and practice patterns rather than current guidelines. We Describe lung cancer staging at two large academic medical centers to identify the impact different procedural approaches have on patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing a lung cancer diagnostic evaluation at two multidisciplinary centers during a 1-year period. Identifying complication rates and the need for multiple biopsies as our primary outcomes, we developed a multivariate regression model to determine features associated with complications and need for multiple biopsies. RESULTS: Of 830 patients, 285 patients were diagnosed with lung cancers during the study period. Those staged at the institution without an endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) program were more likely to require multiple biopsies (OR 3.62, 95% CI: 1.71-7.67, P=0.001) and suffer complications associated with the diagnostic procedure (OR 10.2, 95% CI: 3.08-33.58, P<0.001). Initial staging with transthoracic needle aspiration (TTNA) and conventional bronchoscopy were associated with greater need for subsequent biopsies (OR 8.05 and 14.00, 95% CI: 3.43-18.87 and 5.17-37.86, respectively) and higher complication rates (OR 37.75 and 7.20, 95% CI: 10.33-137.96 and 1.36-37.98, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer evaluation at centers with a dedicated EBUS program results in fewer biopsies and complications than at multidisciplinary counterparts without an EBUS program.
BACKGROUND: In evaluating patients with suspected lung cancer, it is important to not only obtain a tissue diagnosis, but also to obtain enough tissue for both histologic and molecular analysis in order to appropriately stage the patient with a safe and efficient strategy. The diagnostic approach may often be dependent on local resources and practice patterns rather than current guidelines. We Describe lung cancer staging at two large academic medical centers to identify the impact different procedural approaches have on patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing a lung cancer diagnostic evaluation at two multidisciplinary centers during a 1-year period. Identifying complication rates and the need for multiple biopsies as our primary outcomes, we developed a multivariate regression model to determine features associated with complications and need for multiple biopsies. RESULTS: Of 830 patients, 285 patients were diagnosed with lung cancers during the study period. Those staged at the institution without an endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) program were more likely to require multiple biopsies (OR 3.62, 95% CI: 1.71-7.67, P=0.001) and suffer complications associated with the diagnostic procedure (OR 10.2, 95% CI: 3.08-33.58, P<0.001). Initial staging with transthoracic needle aspiration (TTNA) and conventional bronchoscopy were associated with greater need for subsequent biopsies (OR 8.05 and 14.00, 95% CI: 3.43-18.87 and 5.17-37.86, respectively) and higher complication rates (OR 37.75 and 7.20, 95% CI: 10.33-137.96 and 1.36-37.98, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Lung cancer evaluation at centers with a dedicated EBUS program results in fewer biopsies and complications than at multidisciplinary counterparts without an EBUS program.
Authors: David E Ost; Armin Ernst; Xiudong Lei; David Feller-Kopman; George A Eapen; Kevin L Kovitz; Felix J F Herth; Michael Simoff Journal: Chest Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Gerard A Silvestri; Anne V Gonzalez; Michael A Jantz; Mitchell L Margolis; Michael K Gould; Lynn T Tanoue; Loren J Harris; Frank C Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Neal Navani; James M Brown; Matthew Nankivell; Ian Woolhouse; Richard N Harrison; Vandana Jeebun; Mohammed Munavvar; Benjamin J Ng; Doris M Rassl; Mary Falzon; Gabrijela Kocjan; Robert C Rintoul; Andrew G Nicholson; Sam M Janes Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 21.405