Among subjects at high risk for lung cancer who were screened in three rounds of CT scanning and in whom noncalcified pulmonary nodules were evaluated according to volume and volume-doubling time, the chances of finding lung cancer 1 and 2 years after a negative first-round test were 1 in 1000 and 3 in 1000, respectively. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN63545820.)

ObjectivesTo meta-analyze complication rate in computed tomography (CT)-guided transthoracic lung biopsy and associated risk factors.MethodsFour databases were searched from 1/2000 to 8/2015 for studies reporting complications in CT-guided lung biopsy. Overall and major complication rates were pooled and compared between core biopsy and fine needle aspiration (FNA) using the random-effects model. Risk factors for complications in core biopsy and FNA were identified in meta-regression analysis.ResultsFor core biopsy, 32 articles (8,133 procedures) were included and for FNA, 17 (4,620 procedures). Pooled overall complication rates for core biopsy and FNA were 38.8 % (95 % CI: 34.3–43.5 %) and 24.0 % (95 % CI: 18.2–30.8 %), respectively. Major complication rates were 5.7 % (95 % CI: 4.4–7.4 %) and 4.4 % (95 % CI: 2.7–7.0 %), respectively. Overall complication rate was higher for core biopsy compared to FNA (p < 0.001). For FNA, larger needle diameter was a risk factor for overall complications, and increased traversed lung parenchyma and smaller lesion size were risk factors for major complications. For core biopsy, no significant risk factors were identified.ConclusionsIn CT-guided lung biopsy, minor complications were common and occurred more often in core biopsy than FNA. Major complication rate was low. For FNA, smaller nodule diameter, larger needle diameter and increased traversed lung parenchyma were risk factors for complications.Key Points• Minor complications are common in CT-guided lung biopsy • Major complication rate is low in CT-guided lung biopsy • CT-guided lung biopsy complications occur more often in core biopsy than FNA • Major complication rate is similar in core biopsy and FNA • Risk factors for FNA are larger needle diameter, smaller lesion size Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4357-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

PurposeA relationship between mean heart dose (MHD) and acute coronary event (ACE) rate was reported in a study of patients with breast cancer (BC). The main objective of our cohort study was to validate this relationship and investigate if other dose-distribution parameters are better predictors for ACEs than MHD.Patients and MethodsThe cohort consisted of 910 consecutive female patients with BC treated with radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery. The primary end point was cumulative incidence of ACEs within 9 years of follow-up. Both MHD and various dose-distribution parameters of the cardiac substructures were collected from three-dimensional computed tomography planning data.ResultsThe median MHD was 2.37 Gy (range, 0.51 to 15.25 Gy). The median follow-up time was 7.6 years (range, 0.1 to 10.1 years), during which 30 patients experienced an ACE. The cumulative incidence of ACE increased by 16.5% per Gy (95% CI, 0.6 to 35.0; P = .042). Analysis showed that the volume of the left ventricle receiving 5 Gy (LV-V5) was the most important prognostic dose-volume parameter. The most optimal multivariable normal tissue complication probability model for ACEs consisted of LV-V5, age, and weighted ACE risk score per patient (c-statistic, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.91).ConclusionA significant dose-effect relationship was found for ACEs within 9 years after RT. Using MHD, the relative increase per Gy was similar to that reported in the previous study. In addition, LV-V5 seemed to be a better predictor for ACEs than MHD. This study confirms the importance of reducing exposure of the heart to radiation to avoid excess risk of ACEs after radiotherapy for BC.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Physician-rated and patient-rated RISD in head and neck cancer patients treated with (CH) RT cannot be predicted with univariate relationships between the dose distribution in a single organ at risk and an endpoint. Separate predictive models are needed for different endpoints and factors other than dose volume histogram parameters are important as well.