Diagnosis and Molecular Profiling of Lung Cancer by Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy of Superficial Metastatic Sites Is Safe and Highly Effective.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis, staging, and molecular profiling of lung cancer are mostly carried out with bronchoscopy or CT-guided aspiration/biopsy. However, patients with locally advanced or advanced disease often harbor "superficial" metastases for which a percutaneous, ultrasound-assisted needle aspiration/biopsy (US-NAB) might represent an equally effective yet less invasive and costly alternative. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients with known/suspected lung cancer who underwent a US-NAB of a suspected "superficial" metastasis. Cancer genotyping was carried out with next-generation sequencing using the Oncomine™ Focus DNA and RNA fusion panels. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry was performed with the SP263 antibody. Feasibility, diagnostic yield for tissue diagnosis, sensitivity for malignancy, diagnostic yield for the molecular profiling, and complications were the study endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 98 lesions were evaluated, and 93 were biopsied (95% feasibility). The spectrum of sampled sites included lymph nodes (63 patients), bone (11), subcutaneous tissue (8), muscle (7), and the pleura (4). The diagnostic yield for a tissue diagnosis was 93% (91/98). US-NAB correctly identified 85 of the 87 patients finally diagnosed with malignancy (98% sensitivity). Cancer genotyping and PDL1 testing were successfully completed in 41/42 patients (98%) and in 40/50 patients (80%) for whom these tests were requested, respectively. No complications were observed. CONCLUSION: US-NAB of "superficial" metastasis of lung cancer is safe and is associated with high success for diagnosis and molecular profiling. In this clinical setting, using US-NAB as a first-step technique would significantly limit the use of more invasive and costly diagnostic procedures.

Interobserver agreement between pathologist, pulmonologist and molecular pathologist to estimate the tumour burden in rapid on-site evaluation smears from endosonography and guided bronchoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: A growing number of studies have suggested that non-pathologists can reliably assess the adequacy and malignancy in rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) smears prepared during endoscopic sampling procedures. However, no study has verified whether they can also consistently estimate the tumour burden, which is critical for the molecular profiling of lung cancer. We aimed to assess the interobserver agreement (IOA) between a pathologist, a pulmonologist (previously trained in lung and lymph node cytopathology) and a molecular pathologist for the tumour burden in ROSE smears. METHODS: The ROSE smears of consecutive patients with suspected lung cancer undergoing endosonography or guided bronchoscopy were assessed independently by a pathologist, a pulmonologist and a molecular pathologist (gold standard). The IOA for the tumour burden, assessed through k-statistics, was the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 322 ROSE smears obtained from 162 patients were evaluated. The IOA between the molecular pathologist and pulmonologist was very good (moderate to substantial), although slightly inferior to the IOA between the molecular pathologist and pathologist in the whole slide set (k: 0.707, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677-0.739 vs 0.793, 95% CI: 0.762-0.815), as well as in smears prepared from lymphadenopathy (k: 0.783, 95% CI: 0.760-0.855 vs 0.827, 95% CI: 0.728-0.892) or from pulmonary nodules/masses (k: 0.558, 95% CI: 0.416-0.686 vs 0.715, 95% CI: 0.621-0.767). CONCLUSIONS: A professionally trained pulmonologist can reliably estimate the tumour burden in bronchoscopically derived ROSE smears, especially in the setting of lymphadenopathy. This can be particularly useful in institutions where a cytopathologist is not available regularly.

Real-life comparison of pirfenidone and nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A 24-month assessment.

BACKGROUND: Real-life data on the use of pirfenidone and nintedanib to treat patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) are still scarce. METHODS: We compared the efficacy of either pirfenidone (n = 78) or nintedanib (n = 28) delivered over a 24-month period in patients with IPF, followed at two regional clinic centers in Italy, with a group of patients who refused the treatment (n = 36), and who were considered to be controls. All patients completed regular visits at 1- to 3-month intervals, where primary [forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO)] and secondary outcomes (side effects, treatment compliance, and mortality) were recorded. RESULTS: Over time, the decline in FVC and DLCO was significantly higher (p = 0.0053 and p = 0.037, respectively) in controls when compared with the combined treated group, with no significant difference between the two treated groups. Compared to patients with less advanced disease (GAP (Gender, Age, Physiology) stage I), those in GAP stages II and III showed a significantly higher decline in both FVC and DLCO irrespective of the drug taken. Side effects were similarly reported in patients receiving pirfenidone and nintedanib (5% and 7%, respectively), whereas mortality did not differ among the three groups. CONCLUSION: This real-life study demonstrated that both pirfenidone and nintedanib were equally effective in reducing the decline of FVC and DLCO versus non-treated patients after 24 months of treatment; however, patients with more advanced disease were likely to show a more rapid decline in respiratory function.