RESUMO
Background: Advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy targeting the lung periphery has developed at an accelerated pace over the last two decades, whereas evidence to support introduction of innovative technologies has been variable and deficient. A major gap relates to variable reporting of diagnostic yield, in addition to limited comparative studies. Objectives: To develop a research framework to standardize the evaluation of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy techniques for peripheral lung lesions. Specifically, we aimed for consensus on a robust definition of diagnostic yield, and we propose potential study designs at various stages of technology development. Methods: Panel members were selected for their diverse expertise. Workgroup meetings were conducted in virtual or hybrid format. The cochairs subsequently developed summary statements, with voting proceeding according to a modified Delphi process. The statement was cosponsored by the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. Results: Consensus was reached on 15 statements on the definition of diagnostic outcomes and study designs. A strict definition of diagnostic yield should be used, and studies should be reported according to the STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines. Clinical or radiographic follow-up may be incorporated into the reference standard definition but should not be used to calculate diagnostic yield from the procedural encounter. Methodologically robust comparative studies, with incorporation of patient-reported outcomes, are needed to adequately assess and validate minimally invasive diagnostic technologies targeting the lung periphery. Conclusions: This American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians statement aims to provide a research framework that allows greater standardization of device validation efforts through clearly defined diagnostic outcomes and robust study designs. High-quality studies, both industry and publicly funded, can support subsequent health economic analyses and guide implementation decisions in various healthcare settings.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Pulmonares , Médicos , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Consenso , Broncoscopia/métodos , Técnica Delphi , Pulmão/patologia , Assistência Centrada no PacienteRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression on tumor cells, evaluated by immunohistochemistry, guides the use of immunotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the sensitivity and specificity of PD-L1 testing performed in cytologic vs paired histologic specimens in patients with NSCLC? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through June 1, 2021. The primary outcome was pooled sensitivity and specificity of PD-L1 testing performed on cytologic specimens compared with the reference standard of histologic specimens, analyzed at the PD-L1 expression cutoffs (tumor proportion score) ≥ 1% and ≥ 50%. Pooled sensitivity and specificity, and associated 95% CIs, were estimated using bivariate generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles were included, encompassing a total of 1,064 pairs of histology specimens and cytology cell blocks, and 267 pairs of histology specimens and direct smears. Among these, 946 paired specimens were acquired without interval treatment between the collection of histology and cytology samples. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of cytology specimens compared with paired histology specimens at the PD-L1 expression cutoff ≥ 1% were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.89) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93), respectively, whereas the pooled sensitivity and specificity at cutoff ≥ 50% were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.86) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), respectively. When only paired specimens acquired without interval treatment were considered, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of cytology specimens at PD-L1 expression cutoff ≥ 1% were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), respectively, whereas the pooled sensitivity and specificity at cutoff ≥ 50% were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.89) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.96), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Cytologic specimens provide an accurate assessment of PD-L1 expression in most patients with NSCLC, at both ≥ 1% and ≥ 50% cutoffs, when compared with histologic specimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020153279; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/patologia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patologia , Antígeno B7-H1/metabolismo , Ligantes , Biomarcadores Tumorais/análise , ApoptoseRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Little published data exist regarding the learning curve for endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). We sought to assess the improvement in skill as trainees learned EBUS-TBNA in a clinical setting. METHODS: This is a multicentre cohort study of EBUS-TBNA technical skill of interventional pulmonology (IP) fellows as assessed with EBUS-TBNA computer simulator testing every 25 clinical cases throughout IP fellowship training. RESULTS: Nine fellows from three academic centres in the United States and Canada were enrolled in the study. Ongoing improvements were seen for EBUS-TBNA efficiency score and percentage of lymph nodes correctly identified on ultrasound exam, even after 200 clinical cases. Expert-level technical skill was obtained for EBUS efficiency score and for percentage of lymph nodes correctly identified on ultrasound exam at a median of 212 and 164 procedures, respectively; however, 33% of fellows did not achieve expert-level technical skill for either metric during their fellowship training. Significant variation in learning curves of the fellows was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation is seen in the EBUS-TBNA learning curves of individual IP fellows and for individual procedure components, with ongoing improvement in EBUS-TBNA skill even after 200 clinical cases. These results highlight the need for validated, objective measures of individual competence, and can assist training programmes in ensuring adequate procedure volumes required for a majority of trainees to successfully complete these assessments.