A review on electronic nose for diagnosis and monitoring treatment response in lung cancer.

Lung cancer is one of the common malignancies with high mortality rate and a poor prognosis. Most lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an advanced stage either due to limited resources of infrastructure, trained human resources, or delay in clinical suspicion. Low-dose computed tomography has emerged as a screening tool for lung cancer detection but this may not be a feasible option for most developing countries. Electronic nose is a unique non-invasive device that has been developed for lung cancer diagnosis and monitoring response by exhaled breath analysis of volatile organic compounds. The breath-print have been shown to differ not only among lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, but also between various types of lung cancer. Hence, we postulate that the breath-print analysis by electronic nose could be a potential biomarker for the early detection of lung cancer along with monitoring treatment response in a resource-limited setting. In this review, we have consolidated the current published literature suggesting the use of an electronic nose in the diagnosis and monitoring treatment response of lung cancer.

Five Versus 10 Pharyngeal Sprays of 10% Lignocaine for Topical Anesthesia During Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring adequate patient comfort is crucial during bronchoscopy. Although lidocaine spray is recommended for topical pharyngeal anesthesia, the optimum dose of sprays is unclear. We compared 5 versus 10 sprays of 10% lidocaine for topical anesthesia during bronchoscopy. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, subjects were randomized to receive 5 (group A) or 10 sprays (group B) of 10% lidocaine. The primary objective was to compare the operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction between the groups. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-four subjects were randomized (143 group A and 141 group B). The operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction, VAS [mean (SD)] was similar between the groups [group A, 74.1 (19.9) and group B, 74.3 (18.5), P =0.93]. The VAS scores of patient-rated cough [group A, 32.5 (22.9) and group B, 32.3 (22.2), P =0.93], and operator-rated cough [group A, 29.8 (22.3) and group B, 26.9 (21.5), P =0.26] were also similar. The time to reach vocal cords, overall procedure duration, mean doses of sedatives, the proportion of subjects willing to return for a repeat procedure (if required), and complications were not significantly different. Subjects in group A received significantly less cumulative lidocaine (mg) [group A, 293.9 (11.6) and group B, 343.5 (10.6), P <0.001]. CONCLUSION: During bronchoscopy, topical anesthesia with 5 sprays of 10% lidocaine is preferred as it is associated with a similar operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction at a lower cumulative lidocaine dose compared with 10 sprays.

The Cricothyroid versus Spray-As-You-Go Method for Topical Anesthesia during Flexible Bronchoscopy: The CRISP Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Comparative characteristics of the cricothyroid injection and spray-as-you-go methods for lidocaine administration during diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy are not clear. OBJECTIVES: Co-primary outcomes were comparison of cough count from bronchoscope introduction until reaching carina and operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) between groups. Secondary outcomes were cumulative lidocaine dose, procedure duration, assistant-rated cough, willingness to return for repeat procedure, and procedural complications between groups. METHODS: Consecutive subjects were randomized (1:1) to either the cricothyroid or the spray-as-you-go method for topical anesthesia to the vocal cords and trachea. All received nasal 2% lidocaine gel and pharyngeal 10% lidocaine spray. RESULTS: A total of 500 subjects were randomized, and 495 subjects were analyzed (248 cricothyroid and 247 spray-as-you-go). Cough count until reaching carina (median [range]) was significantly lower (cricothyroid, 1 [0-10], and spray-as-you-go, 4 [0-30], p < 0.0001) and operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction, VAS (mean ± standard deviation) (cricothyroid, 7.86 ± 1.39 and spray-as-you-go, 6.86 ± 1.59, p < 0.0001) significantly greater in the cricothyroid group. Patient willingness to return for repeat procedure was greater (87.1 vs. 70.5%, p < 0.001)) and cumulative lidocaine dose significantly lower (305.08 ± 13.40 vs. 322.18 ± 10.67 mg, p < 0.001) in the cricothyroid group. Minor complications occurred in 6 patients in the cricothyroid group and 9 patients in the spray-as-you-go group. CONCLUSION: Cricothyroid lidocaine administration is associated with less cough and superior operator-rated procedure satisfaction during bronchoscopy at a lower cumulative lidocaine dose.