Objective: In lung cancer screening practice low-dose computed tomography, diameter, and volumetric measurement have been used in the management of screen-detected lung nodules. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of nodule malignancy risk prediction tools using diameter or volume and between computer-aided detection (CAD) and radiologist measurements.Methods: Multivariable logistic regression models were prepared by using data from two multicenter lung cancer screening trials. For model development and validation, baseline low-dose computed tomography scans from the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study and a subset of National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) scans with lung nodules 3 mm or more in mean diameter were analyzed by using the CIRRUS Lung Screening Workstation ). In the NLST sample, nodules with cancer had been matched on the basis of size to nodules without cancer.Results: Both CAD-based mean diameter and volume models showed excellent discrimination and calibration, with similar areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.947. The two CAD models had predictive performance similar to that of the radiologist-based model.

Background: Rapid on site examination (ROSE) is encouraged at endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needles aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) to improve diagnostic yield. Due to new therapeutic options in lung cancer, it is not sufficient to merely distinguish between non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) distinction is now standard practice, as well as additional molecular testing where clinically indicated. We investigated the diagnostic yield of on-site smears vs. cell block and the provision of cellular material for ancillary testing at our centre.Methods: A retrospective audit of all EBUS-TBNA procedures performed until July 2012 was undertaken.Diagnostic yield on smears versus cell block was recorded. Cell blocks were reviewed by an experienced pathologist to determine diagnostic accuracy and whether IHC and molecular testing were possible. Results: In total, 234 procedures were recorded with 101 (43.2%) malignant cases, 107 (45.7%) benign cases and an initial 26/234 (11.1%) insufficient for diagnosis of which 11/234 (4.7%) were false negatives for malignancy after further follow up. The average number of passes was 4.5. For malignancies, smear diagnosis was possible in 95% (96/101) of cases and cell block diagnosis in 93.5% (87/93) of cases. There was sufficient material for IHC in 97.7% (85/87) of malignant cases. In 79.3% (69/87) of NSCLCs molecular testing for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation analysis was theoretically possible on samples obtained. Conclusions: Cell blocks are not inferior to smears for diagnostic accuracy and provide sufficient samples for histology. However, ROSE assists the physician on how best to manage samples for ancillary testing.

Linear endobronchial ultrasound was first described in 2003. Since then the technique has spread rapidly and has now become an established practice in many centres as the first-line mediastinal investigation for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. In combination with endoscopic ultrasound, the majority of the mediastinum can be assessed and this approach has been shown to have equivalent accuracy to surgical staging. This strategy is also cost-effective. New tissue processing techniques using liquid-based thin-layer cytology and cell blocks have increased diagnostic yield using immunohistochemical staining and molecular diagnostics. Several meta-analyses of case series and, more recently, randomised controlled trials have provided high-level evidence of efficacy leading to incorporation into national lung cancer staging guidelines. In addition, linear endobronchial ultrasound is increasingly used in the investigation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy for suspected sarcoidosis, tuberculosis and lymphoma. While undoubtedly endobronchial/endoscopic ultrasound has reduced the need for surgical staging in lung cancer, the latter still has an important role to play in certain scenarios. The challenge now facing clinicians is to learn to apply the appropriate test or sequence of tests in each patient while ensuring that operators are appropriately trained in order to ensure optimal outcomes.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Pleural effusions remain a common medical problem which often requires diagnostic pleurocentesis to determine the underlying cause. Pleurocentesis is a frequently performed procedure worldwide with improved safety using ultrasound (US) technology. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> This prospective, single-center study evaluated the use of an ultraportable handheld (UPHH) US compared with standard point-of-care (SPOC) US in determining a safe site for pleurocentesis. In addition, US image quality and factors impacting on image quality were assessed using both UPHH and SPOC US. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Paired US assessments were performed by thoracic physicians using UPHH and SPOC US on patients with unilateral pleural effusions to determine a safe site for pleurocentesis (defined as &#x3e;2 cm of pleural fluid, &#x3e;2 cm from a solid organ/diaphragm, and &#x3c;7 cm chest wall depth). Distance measurements for key structures and image quality scores (using a 5-point Likert rating scale) were obtained at the time of US assessment. Factors affecting image quality were analyzed using univariate analysis. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In 52 of the 54 included patients (96.3%), UPHH US was able to identify a safe site for pleurocentesis. Distance measurements between UPHH and SPOC US were not statistically different (all &#x3c;0.5 cm with values of <i>p</i> &#x3e; 0.05), but image quality was reduced in UPHH compared with SPOC US by 1 point on a 5-point Likert rating scale (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.002). Increasing body mass index was associated with a reduction in image quality in both UPHH and SPOC US (all <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Although image quality was lower in UPHH than SPOC US, a safe site was found in 96.3% of patients, which suggests that UPHH US may be a useful tool for diagnostic pleuro­centesis when SPOC US is not available (http://www.anzctr.org.au/, Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, No. ACTRN12618001592235).