Purpose To compare the diagnostic yield and complication rates of electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopic (ENB)-guided and computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous tissue sampling of lung nodules. Materials and Methods Retrospectively identified were 149 patients sampled percutaneously with CT guidance and 146 patients who underwent ENB with transbronchial biopsy of a lung lesion between 2013 and 2015. Clinical data, incidence of complications, and nodule pathologic analyses were assessed through electronic medical record review. Lung nodule characteristics were reviewed through direct image analysis. Molecular marker studies and pathologic analyses from surgical excision were reviewed when available. Multiple-variable logistic regression models were built to compare the diagnostic yield and complication rates for each method and for different patient and disease characteristics. Results CT-guided sampling was more likely to be diagnostic than ENB-guided biopsy (86.0% [129 of 150] vs 66.0% [99 of 150], respectively), and this difference remained significant even after adjustments were made for patient and nodule characteristics (P < .001). Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, emphysema grade, nodule size, and distance from pleura were not significant predictors of increased diagnostic yield. Intraprocedural time for physicians was significantly lower with CT-guided sampling (P < .001). Similar yield for molecular analyses was noted with the two approaches (ENB-guided sampling, 88.9% [32 of 36]; CT-guided sampling, 82.0% [41 of 50]). The two groups had similar rates of major complications (symptomatic hemorrhage, P > .999; pneumothorax requiring chest tube and/or admission, P = .417). Conclusion CT-guided transthoracic biopsy provided higher diagnostic yield in the assessment of peripheral pulmonary nodules than navigational bronchoscopy with a similar rate of clinically relevant complications. RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
Alterations of RV function and pulmonary artery pressure normalize, and post-transplantation RV function may provide prognostic data in patients after lung transplantation. Our study is based on a highly and retrospectively selected group. We believe that larger prospective studies are warranted to confirm this result.
The goal of our IRB-approved study was to assess if a follow-up MRI every 6 months for 2 years is the most appropriate short-interval follow-up schedule. 203 breast MRI exams were performed from October 2009 to January 2014 as part of a BI-RADS 3 follow-up representing 2.6% of all breast MRIs (7,822) performed. We performed a retrospective longitudinal medical records review of compliance; malignancy rate of BI-RADS 3 exams; and average time and number of breast MRIs necessary prior to definitive disposition. While 77.8% eventually returned, only 45.5% of patients were compliant with follow-up at or near 6 months (4.5-7.5 months). Of those who eventually returned, it took an average of 1.31 follow-up MRIs (95% CI: 1.20-1.43 exams) and 10.3 months (95% CI: 9.0-11.7 months) before definitive disposition. 93.5% of initial findings were dispositioned as benign after two follow-up MRI exams (malignancy rate: 0.98%). Our results lend support to the possibility that the follow-up interval for BI-RADS 3 breast MRIs could be lengthened to 12 months if additional follow-up MRIs are necessary after the first year of 6-month follow-up breast MRIs. Foremost, this appears to be a safe follow-up alternative since benign definitive disposition can usually be made in less than 1 year. Supplemental reasons include persistent low-patient compliance (as redemonstrated in our study) and the higher cost of breast MRI compared to mammogram/ultrasound follow-up. Finally, this paper's findings further support the suggested MRI follow-up interval in the newest BI-RADS atlas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.