Different pathways to lung cancer diagnosis in a real-life setting

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Respiratory Medicine and Research Pub Date : 2024-04-24 DOI:10.1016/j.resmer.2024.101108
Juliette Raëth , Cécile Malbert , Julian Pinsolle , François Arbib , Gilbert R. Ferretti , Bruno Degano , Justin Benet , Giulia Berardi , Arnaud Fedi , Anne-Claire Toffart
{"title":"Different pathways to lung cancer diagnosis in a real-life setting","authors":"Juliette Raëth ,&nbsp;Cécile Malbert ,&nbsp;Julian Pinsolle ,&nbsp;François Arbib ,&nbsp;Gilbert R. Ferretti ,&nbsp;Bruno Degano ,&nbsp;Justin Benet ,&nbsp;Giulia Berardi ,&nbsp;Arnaud Fedi ,&nbsp;Anne-Claire Toffart","doi":"10.1016/j.resmer.2024.101108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Most lung cancers are diagnosed at an advanced stage and therefore have a poor prognosis. One major challenge is to choose the most adapted sampling technique to obtain a rapid pathological diagnosis so as to start treatment as early as possible. A growing number of techniques have been developed in recent years. This study sought to assess the diagnostic efficiency of each, along with the respective duration of the diagnostic pathways.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This retrospective, bicentric, observational study enrolled patients with inoperable lung cancer (stage III or IV) diagnosed in 2018–2019. Diagnostic efficiency was assessed based on the different examinations performed to achieve a precise diagnosis (pathology, immunohistochemistry, and/or molecular biology). The time between the first medical contact and treatment initiation was also assessed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Overall, 625 patients were included (median age 67 years; men 67 %; adenocarcinoma 55 %). The most frequent examinations were bronchial endoscopy (<em>n</em> = 469, 75 %), followed by metastasis biopsy (<em>n</em> = 137, 21.9 %) and guided transthoracic core-needle biopsy (TCNB) (<em>n</em> = 116, 18.6 %). 372 patients had only one procedure (59.5 %), mainly bronchial endoscopy (<em>n</em> = 217, 34.7 %) and metastasis biopsy (<em>n</em> = 71, 11 %). The most efficient examination was thoracic surgery (surgical pleural biopsy, (<em>n</em> = 32, 100 %); mediastinoscopy (<em>n</em> = 26, 96.3 %); surgical pulmonary biopsy (<em>n</em> = 14, 93.3 %). The second most efficient examination was metastasis biopsy (<em>n</em> = 126, 94 %) followed by guided TCNB (<em>n</em> = 108, 93.1 %). The median time from first medical contact to first examination was 4 days (interquartile range 25 %–75 % 1–8). The median time from first medical contact to pathological result was 17 days (10–34). The median time from first medical contact to treatment start was 48 days (30–69).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In order to make an accurate and rapid diagnosis of lung cancer, it is crucial to choose the most appropriate technique. Bronchial endoscopy remains the first-line examination for central lesions, as it is efficient and easily accessible. Guided TCNB and metastasis biopsy are the preferred techniques for peripheral lesions. The choice of the diagnostic technique should be part of a multidisciplinary approach and a dedicated pathway to optimize initial management.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48479,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory Medicine and Research","volume":"86 ","pages":"Article 101108"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590041224000242/pdfft?md5=6fc4fdd45ce1a13b58fc339f38801db4&pid=1-s2.0-S2590041224000242-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory Medicine and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590041224000242","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Most lung cancers are diagnosed at an advanced stage and therefore have a poor prognosis. One major challenge is to choose the most adapted sampling technique to obtain a rapid pathological diagnosis so as to start treatment as early as possible. A growing number of techniques have been developed in recent years. This study sought to assess the diagnostic efficiency of each, along with the respective duration of the diagnostic pathways.

Methods

This retrospective, bicentric, observational study enrolled patients with inoperable lung cancer (stage III or IV) diagnosed in 2018–2019. Diagnostic efficiency was assessed based on the different examinations performed to achieve a precise diagnosis (pathology, immunohistochemistry, and/or molecular biology). The time between the first medical contact and treatment initiation was also assessed.

Results

Overall, 625 patients were included (median age 67 years; men 67 %; adenocarcinoma 55 %). The most frequent examinations were bronchial endoscopy (n = 469, 75 %), followed by metastasis biopsy (n = 137, 21.9 %) and guided transthoracic core-needle biopsy (TCNB) (n = 116, 18.6 %). 372 patients had only one procedure (59.5 %), mainly bronchial endoscopy (n = 217, 34.7 %) and metastasis biopsy (n = 71, 11 %). The most efficient examination was thoracic surgery (surgical pleural biopsy, (n = 32, 100 %); mediastinoscopy (n = 26, 96.3 %); surgical pulmonary biopsy (n = 14, 93.3 %). The second most efficient examination was metastasis biopsy (n = 126, 94 %) followed by guided TCNB (n = 108, 93.1 %). The median time from first medical contact to first examination was 4 days (interquartile range 25 %–75 % 1–8). The median time from first medical contact to pathological result was 17 days (10–34). The median time from first medical contact to treatment start was 48 days (30–69).

Conclusions

In order to make an accurate and rapid diagnosis of lung cancer, it is crucial to choose the most appropriate technique. Bronchial endoscopy remains the first-line examination for central lesions, as it is efficient and easily accessible. Guided TCNB and metastasis biopsy are the preferred techniques for peripheral lesions. The choice of the diagnostic technique should be part of a multidisciplinary approach and a dedicated pathway to optimize initial management.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现实生活中诊断肺癌的不同途径
背景大多数肺癌都是在晚期确诊的,因此预后较差。如何选择最合适的取样技术以获得快速的病理诊断,从而尽早开始治疗是一大挑战。近年来,已开发出越来越多的技术。本研究试图评估每种技术的诊断效率,以及诊断路径各自的持续时间。方法这项回顾性、双中心、观察性研究纳入了 2018-2019 年确诊的无法手术的肺癌(III 期或 IV 期)患者。诊断效率根据为实现精确诊断而进行的不同检查(病理学、免疫组化和/或分子生物学)进行评估。此外,还对首次医疗接触到开始治疗之间的时间进行了评估。结果共纳入 625 名患者(中位年龄 67 岁;男性 67%;腺癌 55%)。最常见的检查是支气管内窥镜检查(469 人,75%),其次是转移灶活检(137 人,21.9%)和经胸核心针活检(116 人,18.6%)。372名患者只进行了一次检查(59.5%),主要是支气管内窥镜检查(217人,34.7%)和转移灶活检(71人,11%)。效率最高的检查是胸外科手术(胸膜活检手术,32 人,100%);纵隔镜检查(26 人,96.3%);肺活检手术(14 人,93.3%)。其次是转移灶活检(126 人,94%),然后是引导下 TCNB(108 人,93.1%)。从首次就医到首次检查的中位时间为 4 天(四分位距为 25%-75% 1-8)。从首次就医到得出病理结果的中位时间为 17 天(10-34)。结论为了准确、快速地诊断肺癌,选择最合适的技术至关重要。支气管内窥镜检查仍然是中心病灶的一线检查方法,因为它高效且容易获得。对于外周病变,TCNB 引导活检和转移活检是首选技术。诊断技术的选择应成为多学科方法和专用路径的一部分,以优化初始治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Respiratory Medicine and Research
Respiratory Medicine and Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
50 days
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients: A multicenter French study. Prognosis of incidental lung cancer in lung transplant candidates. Evaluation of efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with progressive interstitial lung disease (ILD) with inflammatory component (EvER-ILD2): A multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial. Pleural ultrasound for pneumothorax diagnosis after computerised tomography-guided biopsy Physical activity and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A prospective cohort study in UK Biobank and Mendelian randomization analyses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1