Diagnostic Yield vs Diagnostic Accuracy for Peripheral Lung Biopsy Evaluation: Evidence Supporting a Future Pragmatic End Point.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic yield and accuracy endpoints have been used inconsistently in the evaluation of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy devices and techniques, limiting between-study comparisons. In addition, diagnostic accuracy can be adjudicated only after prolonged clinical follow-up, which delays reporting on the performance of novel devices. RESEARCH QUESTION: Will a conservative diagnostic yield definition result in few false-negative initial results to closely approximate diagnostic accuracy and represent a useful outcome for future studies of diagnostic utility? METHODS: Commonly used definitions of diagnostic yield were applied to a prospective data set of consecutive peripheral pulmonary lesions sampled by navigational bronchoscopy from 2017 to 2019. All consider malignancy to be diagnostic but differ in their classification of nonmalignant biopsy findings, which were subcategorized as specific benign, nonspecific benign, or normal lung. Diagnostic yield calculations were also compared with diagnostic accuracy, defined as the proportion of biopsy specimens deemed diagnostic by each definition that were confirmed accurate through 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 450 biopsy specimens of lesions were analyzed. The prevalence of malignancy was 60.9% (274 of 450). On initial bronchoscopy pathology, there were 227 malignant diagnoses (50.4%), with a single false positive (0.4%). Among 104 biopsy specimens with specific benign findings, only two were false negative for malignancy (1.9%). There were 119 nonspecific benign biopsy specimens, with 46 false negatives for malignancy (38.7%). The discrepancy between diagnostic yield and accuracy was 0.7% for the conservative definition, which only considered malignant or specific benign findings as diagnostic. INTERPRETATION: A conservative diagnostic yield definition excluding nonspecific benign diagnoses closely approximated diagnostic accuracy through 2 years' follow-up, with a less than 1% discrepancy. Using this conservative yield definition may allow for dissemination of reliable diagnostic utility data without protracted delays needed for follow-up data in this era of rapid technological change in advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy.

Navigational Bronchoscopy versus Computed Tomography-guided Transthoracic Needle Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Indeterminate Lung Nodules: protocol and rationale for the VERITAS multicenter randomized trial.

Background: Lung nodule incidence is increasing. Many nodules require biopsy to discriminate between benign and malignant etiologies. The gold-standard for minimally invasive biopsy, computed tomography-guided transthoracic needle biopsy (CT-TTNB), has never been directly compared to navigational bronchoscopy, a modality which has recently seen rapid technological innovation and is associated with improving diagnostic yield and lower complication rate. Current estimates of the diagnostic utility of both modalities are based largely on non-comparative data with significant risk for selection, referral, and publication biases. Methods: The VERITAS trial (na V igation E ndoscopy to R each Indeterminate lung nodules versus T ransthoracic needle A spiration, a randomized controlled S tudy) is a multicenter, 1:1 randomized, parallel-group trial designed to ascertain whether electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy with integrated digital tomosynthesis is noninferior to CT-TTNB for the diagnosis of peripheral lung nodules 10-30 mm in diameter with pre-test probability of malignancy of at least 10%. The primary endpoint is diagnostic accuracy through 12 months follow-up. Secondary endpoints include diagnostic yield, complication rate, procedure duration, need for additional invasive diagnostic procedures, and radiation exposure. Discussion: The results of this rigorously designed trial will provide high-quality data regarding the management of lung nodules, a common clinical entity which often represents the earliest and most treatable stage of lung cancer. Several design challenges are described. Notably, all nodules are centrally reviewed by an independent interventional pulmonology and radiology adjudication panel relying on pre-specified exclusions to ensure enrolled nodules are amenable to sampling by both modalities while simultaneously protecting against selection bias favoring either modality. Conservative diagnostic yield and accuracy definitions with pre-specified criteria for what non-malignant findings may be considered diagnostic were chosen to avoid inflation of estimates of diagnostic utility. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04250194.