Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) is an important tool to diagnose allergic rhinitis. In daily clinical routine, experimentally, or when measuring therapeutic success clinically, nasal allergen challenge is fundamental. It is further one of the key diagnostic tools when initiating specific allergen immunotherapy. So far, national recommendations offered guidance on its execution; however, international divergence left many questions unanswered. These differences in the literature caused EAACI to initiate a task force to answer unmet needs and find a consensus in executing nasal allergen challenge. On the basis of a systematic review containing nasal allergen challenges of the past years, task force members reviewed evidence, discussed open issues, and studied variations of several subjective and objective assessment parameters to propose a standardized way of a nasal allergen challenge procedure in clinical practice. Besides an update on indications, contraindications, and preparations for the test procedure, main recommendations are a bilaterally challenge with standardized allergens, with a spray device offering 0.1 mL per nostril. A systematic catalogue for positivity criteria is given for the variety of established subjective and objective assessment methods as well as a schedule for the challenge procedure. The task force recommends a unified protocol for NAC for daily clinical practice, aiming at eliminating the previous difficulty of comparing NAC results due to unmet needs.

No abstract

The combined assessment of a panel of six serum TMs is a more accurate marker for LC presence than these same TMs considered individually. The potential of these TMs in the diagnostic and screening settings deserves further research.

No abstract

Background: Tumor markers have been extensively studied in lung cancer, reporting some relationship to the histology, but their clinical utility is not clear. Methods: ProGRP, CEA, SCC, CA 125, CYFRA 21-1 and NSE were studied prospectively in 155 patients with unconfirmed suspicion of lung cancer and in 647 patients with lung cancer: 182 squamous, 205 adenocarcinomas, 19 large-cell lung cancer (LCLC), 175 small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 66 unspecific non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Results: Abnormal tumor marker serum levels were found in less than 5.3% of the patients with benign diseases, excluding CA 125 (21.3%). Tumor markers were related to histological type and tumor extension with significantly higher CEA (p <0.01) and CA 125 (p <0.007) serum levels in adenocarcinomas, SCC (p <0.0001) and CYFRA 21-1 (p <0.008) in squamous tumors and ProGRP (p <0.0001) and NSE (p <0.0001) in SCLC. Tumor markers may be useful in the histological differentiation of NSCLC and SCLC. Patients with SCC serum levels >2 ng/ml were always NSCLC, while those with SCC <2 ng/ml and ProGRP >100 pg/ml and NSE >35 ng/ml were all SCLC patients. The sensitivity was 76.7 and 79.5%, specificity was 97.2 and 99.6%, with a positive predictive value of 98.6 and 98.6% and a negative predictive value of 60.7 and 92.9% in the differentiation of NSCLC and SCLC, respectively. Conclusions: Tumor marker determination in patients with suspicious signs of lung cancer suggests, in a few hours, the histological diagnosis in the majority of lung cancer patients.