Hook-wire localization versus lipiodol localization for patients with pulmonary lesions having ground-glass opacity.

OBJECTIVES: Accurate and safe preoperative localization is useful for video-assisted thoracic surgery of small pulmonary lesions with ground-glass opacity (GGO). However, the optimal localization method is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the usefulness and safety of the lipiodol and hook-wire localization techniques for video-assisted thoracic surgery of GGO lesions. METHODS: This prospective, non-randomized comparative study was conducted between April 2014 and December 2016 at 8 qualifying university teaching hospitals. Two-hundred-fifty patients with pulmonary lesions having GGO were included. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the lipiodol (n = 125, 4 hospitals) or hook-wire group (n = 125, 4 hospitals) for preoperative localization procedures. Participants underwent preoperative localization via the lipiodol or hook-wire technique followed by thoracoscopic surgery. The primary endpoint was the procedure success rate. RESULTS: The procedure success rates (hook-wire vs lipiodol group) were 94.40% versus 99.16% (P = .08). Localization-related complications occurred in 53.60% versus 48.33% of patients (P = .49). Hemorrhage rates were significantly greater in the hook-wire group than in the lipiodol group (21.6% vs 5.83%, P < .001). The lipiodol procedure time was significantly longer than that of the hook-wire technique (20.69 ± 9.34 vs 17.15 ± 7.91 minutes, P = .001). The initially positive surgical resection margin was significantly greater in the hook-wire group than in the lipiodol group (10.89% vs 2.38%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in success rate between the hook-wire and lipiodol methods. However, the hemorrhage rate was significantly greater in the hook-wire group, whereas the hook-wire group showed greater initially positive surgical resection margins.

Management of the solitary pulmonary nodule.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review the categorization and management of solitary pulmonary nodules. RECENT FINDINGS: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were updated in 2018 and the revised Fleischner Society guidelines were published in 2017. The revised Fleischner Society guidelines published in 2017 have less frequent follow-up recommendations for incidentally detected pulmonary nodules with longer intervals between subsequent CT scans. The updated 2018 version of National Comprehensive Cancer Network lung cancer screening guidelines provide recommendations for screen-detected nodules based on a patient's risk of cancer. New molecular assays may be of use in patients with a pretest probability of malignancy less than 50%. When these tests indicate low risk, a strategy of follow-up CT imaging may be feasible, avoiding unnecessary invasive testing. However, further clinical utility studies are needed in this area. SUMMARY: Management options for pulmonary nodules include watchful waiting with follow-up CT imaging, PET imaging, or further invasive testing based on probability of malignancy. With a low estimated risk of malignancy in an incidentally detected solitary pulmonary nodule, longer intervals between follow-up CT scans are recommended for patients. For patients at high risk for malignancy or those with nodules of at least 8 mm, either incidentally, screen detected, or symptom driven, a diagnostic biopsy is necessary to establish the cause of a solitary pulmonary nodule.