Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The Diagnostic Accuracy and Sensitivity for Malignancy of Radial-Endobronchial Ultrasound and Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy for Sampling of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
McGuire, Anna L; Myers, Renelle; Grant, Kyle; Lam, Stephen; Yee, John.
Affiliation
  • McGuire AL; Department of Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery.
  • Myers R; Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  • Grant K; Department of Medicine, Division of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia.
  • Lam S; Department of Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery.
  • Yee J; Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol ; 27(2): 106-121, 2020 Apr.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31985505
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Lung cancer screening with computed tomography chest is identifying peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) suspicious for early-stage lung cancer at increasing rates. Radial-endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS) and electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) are 2 methods to sample PPLs to diagnose and treat early lung cancer. ENB has a higher operating financial cost, however, the rationale for its use is possible higher diagnostic accuracy versus R-EBUS.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this study was to determine the comparative diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value for R-EBUS and ENB in sampling PPLs.

METHODS:

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The Ovid Medline database was queried for original research reporting a diagnostic yield of R-EBUS or ENB for PPLs identified on computed tomography chest suspicious for malignancy. The I statistic assessed study heterogeneity. Random effects models produced pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for malignancy. Reasons for heterogeneity were explored with meta-regression. Publication bias and small study effects were assessed.

RESULTS:

A total of 41 studies involved 2988 lung nodules (R-EBUS 2102, ENB 886) in 3204 patients (R-EBUS 2097, ENB 1107). Overall sensitivity to detect cancer was 70.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 67.2-74.0]; R-EBUS 70.5% (95% CI 66.1-74.8), ENB 70.7% (95% CI 64.7-76.8). Pooled overall diagnostic accuracy was 74.2% (95% CI 71.0-77.3); R-EBUS 72.4% (95% CI 68.7-76.1), ENB 76.4% (95% CI 70.8-82.0). The localization modalities had comparative safety profiles of <2% complications.

CONCLUSION:

Both technologies have a high proportion of successful PPL localization with similar sensitivity for malignancy and accuracy. As such, both reasonable options for health care authorities to employ diagnostic algorithms.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Specimen Handling / Bronchoscopy / Endosonography / Lung Neoplasms Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies / Systematic_reviews Limits: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol Year: 2020 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Specimen Handling / Bronchoscopy / Endosonography / Lung Neoplasms Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Screening_studies / Systematic_reviews Limits: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol Year: 2020 Document type: Article
...