EBUS-TBNA for mediastinal staging of centrally located T1N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer clinically staged with PET/CT.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) for mediastinal staging of centrally located T1N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) clinically staged with positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). METHODS: We conducted a study that included patients with centrally located T1N0M0 NSCLC, clinically staged with PET/CT who underwent EBUS-TBNA for mediastinal staging. Patients with negative EBUS-TBNA underwent mediastinoscopy, video-assisted mediastinoscopic lymphadenectomy (VAMLA) and/or lung resection with systematic nodal dissection, that were considered the gold standard. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), overall accuracy of EBUS-TBNA for diagnosing mediastinal metastases (N2 disease) and the number needed to treat (NNT: number of patients needed to undergo EBUS-TBNA to avoid a case of pathologic N2 disease after resection) were calculated. RESULTS: One-hundred eighteen patients were included. EBUS-TBNA proved N2 disease in four patients. In the remaining 114 patients who underwent mediastinoscopy, VAMLA and/or resection there were two cases of N2 (N2 prevalence 5.1%). The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV and overall accuracy for diagnosing mediastinal metastases (N2 disease) were of 66%, 100%, 98%, 100% and 98%, respectively. The NNT was 31 (95% CI: 15-119). CONCLUSION: EBUS-TBNA in patients with central clinically staged T1N0M0 NSCLC presents a good diagnostic accuracy for mediastinal staging, even in a population with low prevalence of N2 disease. Therefore, its indication should be considered in the management of even these early lung cancers.

How do we classify a central tumor? Results of a multidisciplinary survey from the SEPAR Thoracic Oncology area / ¿Cómo clasificamos un tumor central? Resultados de una encuesta multidisciplinaria propuesta desde el área de Oncología Torácica de SEPAR

Introduction: In patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and normal mediastinal imaging tests, centrally located tumors have greater occult mediastinal involvement. Clinical guidelines, therefore, recommend invasive mediastinal staging in this situation. However, definitions of centrality in the different guidelines are inconsistent. The SEPAR Thoracic Oncology area aimed to evaluate the degree of familiarity with various concepts related to tumor site among professionals who see patients with NSCLC in Spain.Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to members of Spanish medical societies involved in the management of NSCLC, structured according to the 3 aspects to be evaluated: 1) uniformity in the definition of central tumor location; 2) uniformity in the classification of lesions that extend beyond dividing lines; and 3) ability to delineate lesions in the absence of dividing lines.Results: A total of 430 participants responded. The most voted definition of centrality was «lesions in contact with hilar structures» (49.7%). The lines most often chosen to delimit the hemithorax were concentric hilar lines (89%). Most respondents (92.8%) classified tumors according to the side of the dividing line that contained most of their volume. Overall, 78.6% were able to correctly classify a central lesion in the absence of dividing lines.Conclusions: In our survey, the most widely accepted definition of centrality is not one of the proposals specified in the clinical guidelines. The results reflect wide variability in the classification of tumor lesions. (AU)

Introducción: En pacientes con cáncer de pulmón de célula no pequeña (CPCNP) y mediastino normal, en pruebas de imagen, los tumores de localización central presentan mayor afectación mediastínica oculta. Por ello las guías clínicas recomiendan estadificación mediastínica invasiva en esta situación. No obstante, las definiciones de centralidad son poco uniformes entre guías. Desde el área de oncología torácica de la SEPAR se propuso evaluar el grado de familiaridad con varios conceptos relacionados con la localización tumoral entre profesionales que atienden pacientes con CPCNP en nuestro territorio.Métodos: Se envió una encuesta a miembros de sociedades médicas nacionales implicadas en el manejo del CPCNP. La encuesta se estructuró en tres aspectos a evaluar: 1) uniformidad en la definición de localización tumoral central; 2) uniformidad en la clasificación de lesiones que sobrepasan líneas divisorias y 3) capacidad para delimitar lesiones en ausencia de líneas divisorias.Resultados: 430 participantes respondieron. La definición de centralidad más votada fue «lesiones en contacto con las estructuras hiliares» (49,7%). Las líneas más escogidas para delimitar el hemitórax fueron líneas concéntricas al hilio (89%). La mayoría (92,8%) consideró los tumores según en qué lado de la línea divisoria se encontrase la mayor parte de su volumen. Un 78,6% fue capaz de catalogar correctamente una lesión central en ausencia de líneas divisorias.Conclusiones: En nuestra encuesta, la definición de centralidad más aceptada no es ninguna de las propuestas en las guías clínicas. Los resultados reflejan amplia variabilidad para clasificar lesiones tumorales. (AU)

How do we Classify a Central Tumor? Results of a Multidisciplinary Survey from the SEPAR Thoracic Oncology Area. / ¿Cómo clasificamos un tumor central? Resultados de una encuesta multidisciplinaria propuesta desde el área de Oncología Torácica de SEPAR.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and normal mediastinal imaging tests, centrally located tumors have greater occult mediastinal involvement. Clinical guidelines, therefore, recommend invasive mediastinal staging in this situation. However, definitions of centrality in the different guidelines are inconsistent. The SEPAR Thoracic Oncology area aimed to evaluate the degree of familiarity with various concepts related to tumor site among professionals who see patients with NSCLC in Spain. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to members of Spanish medical societies involved in the management of NSCLC, structured according to the 3 aspects to be evaluated: 1) uniformity in the definition of central tumor location; 2) uniformity in the classification of lesions that extend beyond dividing lines; and 3) ability to delineate lesions in the absence of dividing lines. RESULTS: A total of 430 participants responded. The most voted definition of centrality was «lesions in contact with hilar structures¼ (49.7%). The lines most often chosen to delimit the hemitorax were concentric hilar lines (89%). Most participants (92.8%) classified tumors according to the side of the dividing line that contained most of their volume. Overall, 78.6% were able to correctly classify a central lesion in the absence of dividing lines. CONCLUSIONS: In our survey, the most widely accepted definition of centrality is not one of the proposals specified in the clinical guidelines. The results reflect wide variability in the classification of tumor lesions.

Geometrical Measurement of Central Tumor Location in cT1N0M0 NSCLC Predicts N1 but Not N2 Upstaging.

BACKGROUND: In patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and normal mediastinum, the central tumor location predicts occult nodal disease (both N1 and N2). We evaluated a novel definition of central location based on a geometrical measurement of the tumor location within the lung that could predict N2, N1, or both. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with confirmed NSCLC, radiologically and metabolically staged T1 N0 M0, who underwent invasive mediastinal staging and/or lung resection. The central tumor location was measured considering 2 ratios. The inner margin ratio (IMR) and outer margin ratio (OMR) were both calculated as the distance from the inner margin of the lung to both margins of the tumor (inner [IMR], outer [OMR]) divided by the lung width. Optimal cutoffs for IMR and OMR were calculated. Tumors with values lower than the cutoffs were considered central. Prevalences of N1 and N2 upstaging were estimated and bivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to predict the odds of N1 and N2 upstaging using IMR and OMR cutoffs. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients were included. The prevalence of N1 and N2 upstaging was 11% and 5.3%, respectively. Cutoffs of 0.5 for IMR and 0.64 for OMR were estimated. Both ratios predicted N1 upstaging (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 4.2 [1.5-12]; P < .007; area under the curve, 0.65) but did not predict N2 upstaging. CONCLUSIONS: Central tumor location can be assessed by means of IMR and OMR and predicts N1 upstaging in patients with radiologically and metabolically T1 N0 M0 tumors. This is important for the selection of patients for therapies that require N0 tumors.

Risk factors for later hospitalization of patients discharged from an emergency department with nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms. / Factores de riesgo de rehospitalización en pacientes con COVID-19 leve tras el alta desde el servicio de urgencias.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical course of patients discharged from the emergency department (ED) with nonsevere coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and explore possible risk factors for later hospitalization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with nonsevere COVID-19 who were discharged from the ED were included prospectively. We explored risk factors for hospitalization after discharge. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included; 17 (23%) were hospitalized after discharge. Three (4%) of the 17 patients died. Age, lymphopenia, a high Charlson Comorbidity Index, and a shorter delay between the onset of symptoms and the first visit to the ED were associated with hospitalization afterwards, although on multivariate analysis only time less than 6 days between symptom onset and the first ED visit was associated with later hospitalization (odds ratio, 4.62; 95% CI, 1.08-19.7). CONCLUSION: More than 20% of ED patients with nonsevere COVID-19 require hospitalization later.

OBJETIVO: Describir la evolución clínica de pacientes con COVID-19 leve tras el alta de urgencias y analizar los posibles factores de riesgo para una posterior hospitalización. METODO: Pacientes con COVID-19 leve dados de alta desde urgencias fueron prospectivamente incluidos. Los factores de riesgo de hospitalización fueron evaluados. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 74 pacientes y 17 (23%) requirieron hospitalización, de los cuales 3 (4%) fallecieron. La edad, la linfopenia, un mayor índice Charlson y un menor tiempo desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta la primera consulta a urgencias se asociaron a hospitalización, aunque en el análisis multivariado únicamente un tiempo desde el inicio de síntomas a la consulta a urgencias - 6 días se asoció a hospitalización (OR: 4,62: IC 95%: 1,08-19,7). CONCLUSIONES: Más del 20% de pacientes con COVID-19 leve dados de alta desde urgencias requiere hospitalización.

Factores de riesgo de rehospitalización en pacientes con COVID-19 leve tras el alta desde el servicio de urgencias / Risk factors for later hospitalization of patients discharged from an emergency department with non severe COVID-19 symptoms

OBJETIVO: Describir la evolución clínica de pacientes con COVID-19 leve tras el alta de urgencias y analizar los posibles factores de riesgo para una posterior hospitalización. MÉTODO: Pacientes con COVID-19 leve dados de alta desde urgencias fueron prospectivamente incluidos. Los factores de riesgo de hospitalización fueron evaluados. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 74 pacientes y 17 (23%) requirieron hospitalización, de los cuales 3 (4%) fallecieron. La edad, la linfopenia, un mayor índice Charlson y un menor tiempo desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta la primera consulta a urgencias se asociaron a hospitalización, aunque en el análisis multivariado únicamente un tiempo desde el inicio de síntomas a la consulta a urgencias < 6 días se asoció a hospitalización (OR: 4,62: IC 95%: 1,08-19,7). CONCLUSIONES: Más del 20% de pacientes con COVID-19 leve dados de alta desde urgencias requiere hospitalización

OBJETIVES: To describe the clinical course of patients discharged from the emergency department (ED) with non severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and explore possible risk factors for later hospitalization. METHODS: Patients with nonsevere COVID-19 who were discharged from the ED were included prospectively. We explored risk factors for hospitalization after discharge. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included; 17 (23%) were hospitalized after discharge. Three (4%) of the 17 patients died. Age, lymphopenia, a high Charlson Comorbidity Index, and a shorter delay between the onset of symptoms and the first visit to the ED were associated with hospitalization afterwards, although on multivariate analysis only time less than 6 days between symptom onset and the first ED visit was associated with later hospitalization (odds ratio, 4.62; 95% CI, 1.08-19.7). CONCLUSION: More than 20% of ED patients with nonsevere COVID-19 require hospitalization later

Rendimiento diagnóstico del broncoaspirado recogido antes y después de la biopsia bronquial en pacientes con neoplasia pulmonar y lesión endobronquial / Diagnostic performance of the bronchial aspirate collected before and after the bronchial biopsy in patients with pulmonary neoplasia with endobronchial lesion

Antecedentes y objetivos: En pacientes con cáncer de pulmón (CP) y lesión endobronquial, la secuencia óptima de recogida del broncoaspirado, previamente (BASpre) o posteriormente a la biopsia (BASpost) aún no está establecida. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar el rendimiento diagnóstico del BASpre con el BASpost. Materiales y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo que incluyó pacientes con CP y lesión endobronquial sometidos a una broncoscopia con biopsia bronquial y muestras de BASpre y de BASpost. Se calculó el rendimiento diagnóstico de ambas técnicas. Resultados: Se incluyeron 144 pacientes. El BASpre fue diagnóstico en 24 (16,7%) casos y el BASpost en 33 (22,9%) (prueba de Chi-cuadrado p<0,009). El número de casos en que resultaron el único método diagnóstico fue idéntico: 2 para el BASpre y 2 casos para el BASpost. Conclusiones: En pacientes con CP y lesión endobronquial, el BASpost aporta material diagnóstico en un porcentaje de casos mayor que el BASpre. No obstante, esta diferencia no es clínicamente relevante ya que no influye en el rendimiento diagnóstico global de la broncoscopia

Background and objectives: In patients with lung cancer (LC) and endobronchial lesion, the optimal sequence for collecting bronchial aspirate, before (BASpre) or after the biopsy (BASpost) is not yet established. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of BASpre with BASpost. Materials and methods: Retrospective study of patients with LC and endobronchial lesion undergoing bronchoscopy with bronchial biopsy and BASpre and BASpost samples. The diagnostic performance of both techniques was calculated. Results: A total of 144 patients were included. BASpre was diagnostic in 24 (16.7%) cases and BASpost in 33 (22.9%) (Chi-squared P<0.009). The number of cases in which it was the only diagnostic method was identical: Two for BASpre and two cases for BASpost. Conclusions: In patients with LC and endobronchial lesion, BASpost is diagnosed in a higher percentage of cases than BASpre. This difference does not affect the overall diagnostic performance of bronchoscopy as the number of times in which either is the only diagnostic procedure is identical

Diagnostic performance of the bronchial aspirate collected before and after the bronchial biopsy in patients with pulmonary neoplasia with endobronchial lesion. / Rendimiento diagnóstico del broncoaspirado recogido antes y después de la biopsia bronquial en pacientes con neoplasia pulmonar y lesión endobronquial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In patients with lung cancer (LC) and endobronchial lesion, the optimal sequence for collecting bronchial aspirate, before (BASpre) or after the biopsy (BASpost) is not yet established. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of BASpre with BASpost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of patients with LC and endobronchial lesion undergoing bronchoscopy with bronchial biopsy and BASpre and BASpost samples. The diagnostic performance of both techniques was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were included. BASpre was diagnostic in 24 (16.7%) cases and BASpost in 33 (22.9%) (Chi-squared P<0.009). The number of cases in which it was the only diagnostic method was identical: Two for BASpre and two cases for BASpost. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LC and endobronchial lesion, BASpost is diagnosed in a higher percentage of cases than BASpre. This difference does not affect the overall diagnostic performance of bronchoscopy as the number of times in which either is the only diagnostic procedure is identical.