Maria Teresa Ruiz Tsukazan1,2, Ricardo Mingarini Terra3, Frank Detterbeck4, Ilka Lopes Santoro5, Bruno Hochhegger6,7, Gustavo de Souza Portes Meirelles8, Gustavo Fortunato9, Gustavo Faibischew Prado10,11. 1. Thoracic Surgery Division, Hospital São Lucas da Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil. 2. Pulmonary and Thoracic Surgery Division, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 3. Thoracic Surgery Division, Instituto do Coracao, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 4. Thoracic Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, USA. 5. Respiratory Division, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Radiology, Hospital São Lucas da Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Escola de Medicina, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 7. Radiology, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre (UFCSPA), Porto Alegre, Brazil. 8. Radiology, Grupo Fleury, São Paulo, Brazil. 9. Thoracic Surgery Division, Santa Casa de Misericórdia da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil. 10. Pulmonary Division, Instituto do Coracao, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 11. Pulmonary Division, Instituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo "Octavio Frias de Oliveira", Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary nodules are common; some are inconsequential while others are malignant. Management of solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) in Brazil appears to be highly variable, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes. Assessment of the variability and the association with the degree of availability of resources can provide a foundation for development of clinical guidelines for management of SPN specific for the Brazilian setting. METHODS: A web-based survey was developed by thoracic surgeons, pulmonologists and radiologists to evaluate SPN perception and management. This survey was sent to their respective national societies members and answers collected between August and December 2016. That included multiple choice questions regarding age, specialty, SPN management, accessibility to exams and interventional procedures characterizing public (SUS) and supplementary private working settings. RESULTS: A total of 461 questionnaires were answered. More than half of participants live in cities with over one million people. Specialties were reasonable equilibrated with 43.5% radiologists, 33.5% thoracic surgeons, 20.3% pulmonologists and 2.6% others. Most of the respondents work in both public and private sector (72.7%). Private has a similar reality compared to well-developed nations regarding exams accessibility and interventions. SUS setting has a significant variability access according to the participants. CT is only easily available in 31.9% of cases, PET-CT is easily available in 24.4%, bronchoscopy is easily available for 42.8%, transthoracic needle biopsy is only easily available in 13.9% and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) biopsy is not available in 19.5%. When there is a probability of malignancy of 50% or higher, 46.5% of participants would be comfortable recommending surgical biopsy. When the probability is higher than 10%, only 36.9% would be comfortable following up radiologically. CONCLUSIONS: Brazil has a very different setting for public and private patients regarding exams accessibility and management options. That might explain why participants have a higher tendency to choose interventional diagnosis and explains why current guidelines may not be applicable to developing countries reality.
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary nodules are common; some are inconsequential while others are malignant. Management of solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) in Brazil appears to be highly variable, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes. Assessment of the variability and the association with the degree of availability of resources can provide a foundation for development of clinical guidelines for management of SPN specific for the Brazilian setting. METHODS: A web-based survey was developed by thoracic surgeons, pulmonologists and radiologists to evaluate SPN perception and management. This survey was sent to their respective national societies members and answers collected between August and December 2016. That included multiple choice questions regarding age, specialty, SPN management, accessibility to exams and interventional procedures characterizing public (SUS) and supplementary private working settings. RESULTS: A total of 461 questionnaires were answered. More than half of participants live in cities with over one million people. Specialties were reasonable equilibrated with 43.5% radiologists, 33.5% thoracic surgeons, 20.3% pulmonologists and 2.6% others. Most of the respondents work in both public and private sector (72.7%). Private has a similar reality compared to well-developed nations regarding exams accessibility and interventions. SUS setting has a significant variability access according to the participants. CT is only easily available in 31.9% of cases, PET-CT is easily available in 24.4%, bronchoscopy is easily available for 42.8%, transthoracic needle biopsy is only easily available in 13.9% and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) biopsy is not available in 19.5%. When there is a probability of malignancy of 50% or higher, 46.5% of participants would be comfortable recommending surgical biopsy. When the probability is higher than 10%, only 36.9% would be comfortable following up radiologically. CONCLUSIONS: Brazil has a very different setting for public and private patients regarding exams accessibility and management options. That might explain why participants have a higher tendency to choose interventional diagnosis and explains why current guidelines may not be applicable to developing countries reality.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lung neoplasm; guideline; lung; lung cancer; mass screening; surveys and questionnaires
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Chee K Phua; Wen Y Sim; Kuan Sen Tee; Sennen J W Lew; Albert Y H Lim; Dessmon Y H Tai; Soon Keng Goh; Ai Ching Kor; Alan W K Ng; John Abisheganaden; Akash Verma Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Jonathan M Iaccarino; James Simmons; Michael K Gould; Christopher G Slatore; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-06
Authors: Pamela Samson; Aalok Patel; Tasha Garrett; Traves Crabtree; Daniel Kreisel; A Sasha Krupnick; G Alexander Patterson; Stephen Broderick; Bryan F Meyers; Varun Puri Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Michael K Gould; Jessica Donington; William R Lynch; Peter J Mazzone; David E Midthun; David P Naidich; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Chest Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Felipe Alves Mourato; Ana Emília Teixeira Brito; Monique Sampaio Cruz Romão; Renata Guerra Galvão Santos; Cristiana Altino de Almeida; Paulo José de Almeida Filho; Aline Lopes Garcia Leal Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2020 Jan-Feb