Current Practice of Airway Stenting in the Adult Population in Europe: A Survey of the European Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (EABIP).

BACKGROUND: Airway stenting (AS) commenced in Europe circa 1987 with the first placement of a dedicated silicone airway stent. Subsequently, over the last 3 decades, AS was spread throughout Europe, using different insertion techniques and different types of stents. OBJECTIVES: This study is an international survey conducted by the European Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (EABIP) focusing on AS practice within 26 European countries. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all EABIP National Delegates in February 2015. National delegates were responsible for obtaining precise and objective data regarding the current AS practice in their country. The deadline for data collection was February 2016. RESULTS: France, Germany, and the UK are the 3 leading countries in terms of number of centres performing AS. These 3 nations represent the highest ranked nations within Europe in terms of gross national income. Overall, pulmonologists perform AS exclusively in 5 countries and predominately in 12. AS is performed almost exclusively in public hospitals. AS performed under general anaesthesia is the rule for the majority of institutions, and local anaesthesia is an alternative in 9 countries. Rigid bronchoscopy techniques are predominant in 20 countries. Amongst commercially available stents, both Dumon and Ultraflex are by far the most commonly deployed. Finally, 11 countries reported that AS is an economically viable activity, while 10 claimed that it is not. CONCLUSION: This EABIP survey demonstrates that there is significant heterogeneity in AS practice within Europe. Therapeutic bronchoscopy training and economic issues/reimbursement for procedures are likely to be the primary reasons explaining these findings.

Progressive Stenosis of Both Main Bronchi Associated With Recurrent Infections of a Carinal Pouch.

A 55-year-old woman was referred to our department with a bilateral stenosis of both main bronchi starting at the level of the carina and a blind-ended pouch originating from the carina. Differential diagnosis of diffuse narrowing of the intrathoracic central airways was excluded during the diagnostic workup. Recurrent infection of the blind-ended pouch remained a possible explanation of this unusual type of stenosis. Carinal resection and reconstruction by end-to-end anastomosis of the trachea to the right main bronchus and reimplantation of the left main bronchus to the intermediate bronchus with intraoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygen support resulted in an excellent long-term outcome.

Noninvasive detection of lung cancer by analysis of exhaled breath.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death in Europe and the western world. At present, diagnosis of lung cancer very often happens late in the course of the disease since inexpensive, non-invasive and sufficiently sensitive and specific screening methods are not available. Even though the CT diagnostic methods are good, it must be assured that "screening benefit outweighs risk, across all individuals screened, not only those with lung cancer". An early non-invasive diagnosis of lung cancer would improve prognosis and enlarge treatment options. Analysis of exhaled breath would be an ideal diagnostic method, since it is non-invasive and totally painless. METHODS: Exhaled breath and inhaled room air samples were analyzed using proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) and solid phase microextraction with subsequent gas chromatography mass spectrometry (SPME-GCMS). For the PTR-MS measurements, 220 lung cancer patients and 441 healthy volunteers were recruited. For the GCMS measurements, we collected samples from 65 lung cancer patients and 31 healthy volunteers. Lung cancer patients were in different disease stages and under treatment with different regimes. Mixed expiratory and indoor air samples were collected in Tedlar bags, and either analyzed directly by PTR-MS or transferred to glass vials and analyzed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS). Only those measurements of compounds were considered, which showed at least a 15% higher concentration in exhaled breath than in indoor air. Compounds related to smoking behavior such as acetonitrile and benzene were not used to differentiate between lung cancer patients and healthy volunteers. RESULTS: Isoprene, acetone and methanol are compounds appearing in everybody's exhaled breath. These three main compounds of exhaled breath show slightly lower concentrations in lung cancer patients as compared to healthy volunteers (p < 0.01 for isoprene and acetone, p = 0.011 for methanol; PTR-MS measurements). A comparison of the GCMS-results of 65 lung cancer patients with those of 31 healthy volunteers revealed differences in concentration for more than 50 compounds. Sensitivity for detection of lung cancer patients based on presence of (one of) 4 different compounds not arising in exhaled breath of healthy volunteers was 52% with a specificity of 100%. Using 15 (or 21) different compounds for distinction, sensitivity was 71% (80%) with a specificity of 100%. Potential marker compounds are alcohols, aldehydes, ketones and hydrocarbons. CONCLUSION: GCMS-SPME is a relatively insensitive method. Hence compounds not appearing in exhaled breath of healthy volunteers may be below the limit of detection (LOD). PTR-MS, on the other hand, does not need preconcentration and gives much more reliable quantitative results then GCMS-SPME. The shortcoming of PTR-MS is that it cannot identify compounds with certainty. Hence SPME-GCMS and PTR-MS complement each other, each method having its particular advantages and disadvantages. Exhaled breath analysis is promising to become a future non-invasive lung cancer screening method. In order to proceed towards this goal, precise identification of compounds observed in exhaled breath of lung cancer patients is necessary. Comparison with compounds released from lung cancer cell cultures, and additional information on exhaled breath composition in other cancer forms will be important.

Determination of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath of patients with lung cancer using solid phase microextraction and gas chromatography mass spectrometry.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of exhaled breath is a promising diagnostic method. Sampling of exhaled breath is non-invasive and can be performed as often as considered desirable. There are indications that the concentration and presence of certain of volatile compounds in exhaled breath of lung cancer patients is different from concentrations in healthy volunteers. This might lead to a future diagnostic test for lung cancer. METHODS: Exhaled breath samples from 65 patients with different stages of lung cancer and undergoing different treatment regimes were analysed. Mixed expiratory and indoor air samples were collected. Solid phase microextraction (SPME) with carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane (CAR/PDMS) sorbent was applied. Compounds were analysed by means of gas chromatography (GC) and mass spectrometry (MS). RESULTS: The method we used allowed identification with the spectral library of 103 compounds showing at least 15% higher concentration in exhaled breath than in inhaled air. Among those 103 compounds, 84 were confirmed by determination of the retention time using standards based on the respective pure compound. Approximately, one third of the compounds detected were hydrocarbons. We found aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters, ethers, sulfur compounds, nitrogen-containing compounds and halogenated compounds. Acetonitrile and benzene were two of 10 compounds which correlated with smoking behaviour. A comparison of results from cancer patients with those of 31 healthy volunteers revealed differences in the concentration and presence of certain compounds. The sensitivity for detection of lung cancer patients based on eight different compounds not seen in exhaled breath of healthy volunteers was 51% and the specificity was 100%. These eight potential markers for detection of lung cancer are 1-propanol, 2-butanone, 3-butyn-2-ol, benzaldehyde, 2-methyl-pentane, 3-methyl-pentane, n-pentane and n-hexane. CONCLUSIONS: SPME is a relatively insensitive method and compounds not observed in exhaled breath may be present at a concentration lower than LOD. The main achievement of the present work is the validated identification of compounds observed in exhaled breath of lung cancer patients. This identification is indispensible for future work on the biochemical sources of these compounds and their metabolic pathways.