The primary outcome was the DY of ENB using CBCT with AF for peripheral lesions. In line with prior literature,1 a bronchoscopy procedure was considered diagnostic if a specific malignant or benign diagnosis of the peripheral lesion was made. If only nonspecific findings were identified, such as inflammation, the procedure was considered nondiagnostic. These lesions were then labeled as indeterminate and followed with serial CT scans, if the patient was not suitable for a more invasive diagnostic procedure.
In a subset analysis, follow-up data were collected for subjects who had an indeterminate result on bronchoscopy to establish the true diagnosis. This was used to calculate the prevalence and sensitivity of ENB using CBCT with AF for malignancy. These cases were not used in the determination of DY, even if they subsequently resolved or were later found to be benign.
All bronchoscopic results that showed lung cancer were considered true positives (TPs). If initial bronchoscopy failed to reveal a specific diagnosis (ie, indeterminate), and follow-up data demonstrated that lung cancer was eventually diagnosed, or if the patient was sent for definitive treatment (ie, stereotactic body radiation therapy), the subject was considered a FN.
If an indeterminate lesion resolved, stayed stable or decreased in size on follow-up CT for at least 12 months after the index procedure then this was presumed benign and classified as a true negative (TN) for the purposes of calculating sensitivity and prevalence of malignancy, as well as for diagnostic accuracy. These cases were not used in the determination of DY. Diagnostic accuracy represents the malignant and benign lesions as well as the indeterminate lesions subsequently confirmed as benign with clinical and radiographic follow-up divided by the total number of lesions biopsied.
Sensitivity of ENB using CBCT with AF for malignancy was defined as TP/(TP+FN). Because some subjects did not have complete follow-up, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the possible minimum and maximum diagnostic sensitivities. To determine the minimum sensitivity, subjects with incomplete follow-up were considered FN. To determine the maximum sensitivity, subjects with uncompleted follow-up were considered TN.42
Independent correlation of lesion size, location, visibility, and presence of a bronchus sign, with DY using a multivariate regression analysis was assessed. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant.
Radiation dose exposure was assessed in a representative subset of patients. Effective dose was estimated from dose area product measurements using a generalized conversion coefficient (E=0.16 mSv/Gy cm2), assuming an average x-ray spectra.43,44
Analyses were performed using R 2.15.0 (www.R-project.org).
A total of 93 suspicious pulmonary lung nodules were biopsied in 75 consecutive patients. Fifteen patients presented with multiple lesions, including 10 patients with bilateral lesions. Any patient with multiple lesions had all of these biopsied in a single ENB procedure. One patient was lost to follow-up and excluded from the performance analysis (Fig. 3).
Median lesion size was 16.0 mm (range, 7 to 55 mm). The majority of lesions were located in the middle or peripheral third of the lung (94.6%). A bronchus sign was visible on standard CT imaging in 39% of the cases, while 49% of the lesions were visible on standard fluoroscopy. Mean fluoroscopy time was 6.2±2.6 minutes (For complete information on patient, lesion, and procedural characteristics see Table 1).
Overall proven malignancy rate was 68.5% (63/92 lesions). Primary lung cancer diagnosis was established in 57.6% (53/92) of the inspected lesions (Table 2). The majority of these patients were diagnosed at stage I (75%) or stage II (4%). Pneumothorax occurred in 3 patients (4%), out of which 2 received a chest tube. No significant bronchopulmonary hemorrhage or respiratory failure was reported.
The overall DY by lesion was calculated by dividing the malignant lesions (n=63) and the benign lesions (n=14) by the total number of lesions (n=92, excluding 1 lost to follow-up), resulting in a DY by lesion of 83.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 74.8%-89.9%]. Diagnostic accuracy was 93.5%, which represents the malignant (n=63) and benign lesions (n=14) as well as the indeterminate lesions subsequently confirmed as benign with clinical and radiographic follow-up (n=9) divided by the total number of lesions biopsied (n=92).
The median number of diagnostic tools used per nodule was 3 (range, 1 to 5) and the median number of tool passes per lesion was 10 (range, 2 to 25). We also calculated the median number of passes with each diagnostic tool; cytology brush 4 (range, 1 to 14), transbronchial needle 3 (range, 1 to 9), forceps biopsy 3 (range, 1 to 10), GenCut core biopsy 2 (range, 1 to 4), triple needle brush 2 (range, 2 to 4), and BAL 1 (range, 1 to 2). Diagnostic tools with the highest yield in determining the diagnosis were biopsy forceps (80.6%) and transbronchial needle aspirates (66.2%). Other tools were also used but provided a diagnosis in a lower percentage of cases; cytology brush (54.5%), GenCut core biopsy (37.5%), BAL (25.6%), and a triple needle brush (0%). All diagnostic performance statistics can be found in Table 3.
If we assume that subjects with uncompleted follow-up (n=3) actually had lung cancer (ie, were FN), the prevalence of malignancy in our study was 71.7% (95% CI, 61.8%-79.9%) with a sensitivity of ENB using CBCT with AF for malignancy of 91.3% (95% CI, 82.3%-96.0%). Under the assumption that subjects with uncompleted follow-up did not have malignant disease (ie, were TNs), the minimum prevalence of malignancy in our study was 75.0% (95% CI, 65.3%-82.7%) with a maximum sensitivity of 95.5% (95% CI, 87.5%-98.4%). The minimum and maximum negative predictive value for malignancy was 79.3% (95% CI, 61.6%-90.2%) and 89.7% (95% CI, 73.6%-96.4%), respectively.
Multivariate regression analysis further showed no independent correlation between lesion size, lesion location, lesion visibility under standard fluoroscopy, and the presence of a bronchus sign with DY.
In a representative subset of 9 patients, the total dose area product per case was 31±16 Gycm2. The estimated effective dose per case related to fluoroscopy and exposure was 1.5±0.7 mSv and 3.0±1.4 mSv, respectively. With an average number of 1.5 CBCT scans per case, this leads to an average effective dose of 2.0 mSv per CBCT run.
This retrospective study of 93 lesions in 75 consecutive patients demonstrates the feasibility and effectiveness of CBCT with AF during ENB-guided biopsy procedures and highlights its potential in achieving high DY and low complication rates with an acceptable amount of radiation dose (comparable with CBCT-guided percutaneous needle interventions and considerably lower than conventional CT guidance).45 After exclusion of a single patient that was lost to follow-up the overall DY by lesion was 83.7% (95% CI, 74.8%-89.9%). This was found to be independent of lesion size, lesion location, presence of a bronchus sign, and visibility on fluoroscopy.
Direct comparison of our results with existing literature might be distorted due to heterogeneity (eg disease prevalence, lesion size). CBCT with AF combined with ENB does seem to provide a higher DY compared with earlier reports for ENB guidance or conventional bronchoscopic guidance with CBCT confirmation alone. A recent meta-analysis of DY using ENB showed a variable yield from 60% to 94%.36 In this meta-analysis, the median disease prevalence was 77.5%. This is similar to the prevalence of lung cancer in our study with a value of 75%. Hohenforst-Schmidt et al46 reported an overall yield of 70% when combining CBCT with conventional bronchoscopy, however the mean lesion size was considerably larger (25 mm) than that of this study. Park et al47 showed that CBCT confirmation of device positioning was the only factor associated with higher yield during transbronchial biopsy. Both authors postulated that the addition of CBCT might provide an increase in DY of conventional bronchoscopy that is equivalent to what has been reported for ENB alone.
We attribute our high DY in large part to the addition of CBCT with AF to ENB. This allowed us to avoid doing biopsies when the tip of the locatable guide was clearly not on target. In addition, the use of AF allowed us to limit the number of repeat CBCT scans, with the majority of cases only requiring a single scan, including cases with multiple or bilateral lesions. The ability to view AF in any plane was especially helpful, particularly the use of the lateral (90 degrees) position for anteriorly located lesions. The use of CBCT also offers the ability to adjust for factors like atelectasis and airway deformation by the bronchoscope that ENB is not able to, given its reliance on virtual spatial reconstruction based on preoperative CT scans. This has given us increased confidence in our negative results, many of which have been confirmed as TNs with additional radiographic and clinical follow-up. The use of CBCT with AF may give more confidence to physicians performing ENB procedure without the assistance of ROSE. The recent multicenter prospective NAVIGATE trial showed that only 66% of the sites use ROSE during ENB procedures.2
We noticed in our study a relatively low incidence of the presence of a bronchus sign, which previous studies have indicated as a strong determining factor for the yield of ENB.27 Our data did not show an independent relation between the presence of a bronchus sign and the overall DY. This may be attributed to the fact that small peripheral lesions are less likely to have a bronchus sign, the use of the variably curved steerable catheters, and the extensive experience of the user. The median lesion size in our study was only 16 mm and therefore most of these small peripheral lesions are randomly situated in the parenchyma and are not associated with a particular bronchus. On pathologic examination, even brushings usually contain small fragments of collapsed respiratory parenchyma (respiratory bronchioles and alveoli) indicating that we are not simply sampling the inside of a conducting bronchus or bronchiole. A bronchus sign can obviously simplify navigation to a lesion, reduce the distance of parenchyma that must be traversed and make access to a lesion easier with less pliable tools. Our reliance on multiple biopsy tools and the Edge catheters along with our willingness to make many attempts may be partially responsible for relatively high success rates for peripheral lesions without a bronchus sign. The use of CBCT with AF also enabled us to circumvent the usual pitfalls associated with nonbronchus sign lesions.
The 2 most recent meta-analyses of ENB procedures for peripheral nodules36,37 included studies published before the release of the variably curve-tipped, steerable Edge catheters. These curved-tip catheters are able to facilitate off-angle biopsies for lesions that do not have a direct airway to the lesion. We feel that the use of these catheters increased our success in targeting lesions and this may also be a reason why previous studies have shown comparatively lower DY.
This study also highlights improved accuracy in targeting small lesions. The median size lesion in the study is only 16 mm. To our knowledge this represents the smallest median lesion size in a study of ENB. In the most recent meta-analysis of ENB by Gex et al37 the median lesion size was 25 mm. Furthermore, we chose to use a more exclusive definition of DY, one in which only cases with a definitive malignant or benign diagnosis were counted towards the yield. This is the same definition used in the AQuIRE registry,1 which showed that ENB alone had a DY of only 38.5%. When ENB was combined with r-EBUS the yield increased to 47.1%. In that study, 46.8% of lesions were ≤20 mm. Similarly, in the NAVIGATE trial, 49.7% of lesions were <20 mm, whereas 70.7% of nodules in our study were ≤20 mm. Previous meta-analyses have clearly shown that lesion size effects of the DY.36,37 Multivariate regression analysis showed that lesion size did not affect the yield in our study. This is evidenced when looking at the DY for lesions ≤10 mm which was 84.2% (16/19 lesions).
This study has limitations. It is a retrospective analysis without a control arm. Moreover, having only one operator doing the procedures might hamper the generalizability of the results. However, given the promising results, these findings justify further confirmation in other centers, by different operators, and comparative studies against alternative technologies (ie, r-EBUS). Although the use of AF is an effective way to reduce the number of CBCT scans, the availability of ROSE may create a bias in the clinical workflow. Additional CBCT scans may be necessary for final confirmation in centers where ROSE is not available or for future applications such as bronchoscopic transbronchial tumor ablation.
Moreover, the effect of the learning curve on technology adoption and procedural time was not considered in this study. Involvement of supporting staff and anesthesia is of paramount importance to streamline workflow and achieve satisfactory CBCT image quality. It should also be considered that access to CBCT systems may be a roadblock for adoption of this technique. However, fixed C-arm systems capable of CBCT imaging are now standard of care in interventional cardiology and radiology, and fast growing with the increasing prevalence of hybrid ORs in surgery departments. Collaborative efforts focused around the lung cancer patient should be considered to initiate cross-discipline programs and open the doors of CBCT systems to more specialists.
Finally, one patient was lost to follow-up and was therefore excluded from all the performance calculations. A sensitivity analysis considering the missing outcome as either adding to the yield (DY, 78/93=83.9%) or not (DY, 77/93=82.8%) showed that excluding the patient had minimal impact on the reported DY.
As the field of bronchoscopy advances towards therapeutics there will be increased demand for high-yield bronchoscopic biopsy techniques. In addition, for anyone considering the future application of endobronchial microwave ablation, CBCT scanning will be required to confirm placement of the probe in the center of the lesion. Thus far, no virtual technology has been shown to be accurate enough to confidently apply ablative energy to a lung lesion. This will be a situation where the use of CBCT with AF will excel (Fig. 4, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/LBR/A169). In summary, intraprocedural CBCT imaging with AF is feasible and effective, and is associated with high DY and low complication rate during ENB-guided biopsy procedures.
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of all OR staff, including anesthesia, radiology, pathology as well as our hospital administration. We would also like to acknowledge Kurt Muggli, R.T. (R) (CV) for his early support in our endeavors with CBCT. The authors are also appreciative of Alessandro Radaelli, PhD, for his consistent support for this project.
1. Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X, et al. Diagnostic yield and complications of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung lesions. results of the AQuIRE registry. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193:68–77.
2. Khandhar SJ, Bowling MR, Flandes J, et al. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
to access lung lesions in 1,000 subjects: first results of the prospective, multicenter NAVIGATE study. BMC Pulm Med. 2017;17:59.
3. Baaklini WA, Reinoso MA, Gorin AB, et al. Diagnostic yield of fiberoptic bronchoscopy in evaluating solitary pulmonary nodules. Chest. 2000;117:1049–1054.
4. Swischuk JL, Castaneda F, Patel JC, et al. Percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy of the lung: review of 612 lesions. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9:347–352.
5. Laurent F, Latrabe V, Vergier B, et al. Percutaneous CT-guided biopsy of the lung: comparison between aspiration and automated cutting needles using a coaxial technique. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2000;23:266–272.
6. Klein JS, Salomon G, Stewart EA. Transthoracic needle biopsy with a coaxially placed 20-gauge automated cutting needle: results in 122 patients. Radiology. 1996;198:715–720.
7. Wallace MJ, Krishnamurthy S, Broemeling LD, et al. CT-guided percutaneous fine-needle aspiration biopsy of small (≤1-cm) pulmonary lesions. Radiology. 2002;225:823–828.
8. Kazerooni EA, Lim FT, Mikhail A, et al. Risk of pneumothorax in CT-guided transthoracic needle aspiration biopsy of the lung. Radiology. 1996;198:371–375.
9. Wu CC, Maher MM, Shepard JA. Complications of CT-guided percutaneous needle biopsy of the chest: prevention and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:W678–W682.
10. Geraghty PR, Kee ST, McFarlane G, et al. CT-guided transthoracic needle aspiration biopsy of pulmonary nodules: needle size and pneumothorax rate. Radiology. 2003;229:475–481.
11. Cox JE, Chiles C, McManus CM, et al. Transthoracic needle aspiration biopsy: variables that affect risk of pneumothorax. Radiology. 1999;212:165–168.
12. Wiener RS, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, et al. Population-based risk for complications after transthoracic needle lung biopsy of a pulmonary nodule: an analysis of discharge records. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:137–144.
13. Almeida FA, Casal RF, Jimenez CA, et al. Quality gaps and comparative effectiveness in lung cancer
staging: the impact of test sequencing on outcomes. Chest. 2013;144:1776–1782.
14. Ost DE, Jimenez CA, Lei X, et al. Quality-adjusted survival following treatment of malignant pleural effusions with indwelling pleural catheters. Chest. 2014;145:1347–1356.
15. Schmidt-Hansen M, Baldwin DR, Zamora J. FDG-PET/CT imaging for mediastinal staging in patients with potentially resectable non-small cell lung cancer
. JAMA. 2015;313:1465–1466.
16. Zarbo RJ, Fenoglio-Preiser CM. Interinstitutional database for comparison of performance in lung fine-needle aspiration cytology. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probe Study of 5264 cases with histologic correlation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116:463–470.
17. Becker H, Herth F, Ernst A, et al. Bronchoscopic biopsy of peripheral lung lesions under electromagnetic guidance: a pilot study. J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol. 2005;12:9–13.
18. Hautmann H, Schneider A, Pinkau T, et al. Electromagnetic catheter navigation during bronchoscopy: validation of a novel method by conventional fluoroscopy. Chest. 2005;128:382–387.
19. Schwarz Y, Greif J, Becker HD, et al. Real-time electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
to peripheral lung lesions using overlaid CT images: the first human study. Chest. 2006;129:988–994.
20. Gildea TR, Mazzone PJ, Karnak D, et al. Electromagnetic navigation diagnostic bronchoscopy: a prospective study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174:982–989.
21. Makris D, Scherpereel A, Leroy S, et al. Electromagnetic navigation diagnostic bronchoscopy for small peripheral lung lesions. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:1187–1192.
22. Eberhardt R, Anantham D, Herth F, et al. Electromagnetic navigation diagnostic bronchoscopy in peripheral lung lesions. Chest. 2007;131:1800–1805.
23. Wilson D, Bartlett R. Improved diagnostic yield of bronchoscopy in a community practice: combination of electromagnetic navigation system and rapid on-site evaluation. J Bronchol Intervent Pulmonol. 2007;14:227–232.
24. Lamprecht B, Porsch P, Pirich C, et al. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
in combination with PET-CT and rapid on-site cytopathologic examination for diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions. Lung. 2009;187:55–59.
25. Eberhardt R, Anantham D, Ernst A, et al. Multimodality bronchoscopic diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176:36–41.
26. Bertoletti L, Robert A, Cottier M, et al. Accuracy and feasibility of electromagnetic navigated bronchoscopy under nitrous oxide sedation for pulmonary peripheral opacities: an outpatient study. Respiration. 2009;78:293–300.
27. Seijo LM, de Torres JP, Lozano MD, et al. Diagnostic yield of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
is highly dependent on the presence of a Bronchus sign on CT imaging: results from a prospective study. Chest. 2010;138:1316–1321.
28. Eberhardt R, Morgan RK, Ernst A, et al. Comparison of suction catheter versus forceps biopsy for sampling of solitary pulmonary nodules guided by electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy. Respiration. 2010;79:54–60.
29. Mahajan AK, Patel S, Hogarth DK, et al. Electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy: an effective and safe approach to diagnose peripheral lung lesions unreachable by conventional bronchoscopy in high-risk patients. J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol. 2011;18:133–137.
30. Brownback KR, Quijano F, Latham HE, et al. Electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of lung lesions. J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol. 2012;19:91–97.
31. Jensen KW, Hsia DW, Seijo LM, et al. Multicenter experience with electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
for the diagnosis of pulmonary nodules. J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol. 2012;19:195–199.
32. Lamprecht B, Porsch P, Wegleitner B, et al. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
(ENB): Increasing diagnostic yield. Respir Med. 2012;106:710–715.
33. Pearlstein DP, Quinn CC, Burtis CC, et al. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
performed by thoracic surgeons: one center’s early success. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:944–949; discussion 949–950.
34. Loo FL, Halligan AM, Port JL, et al. The emerging technique of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
-guided fine-needle aspiration of peripheral lung lesions: promising results in 50 lesions. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122:191–199.
35. Bowling MR, Kohan MW, Walker P, et al. The effect of general anesthesia versus intravenous sedation on diagnostic yield and success in electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
. J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol. 2015;22:5–13.
36. Wang Memoli JS, Nietert PJ, Silvestri GA. Meta-analysis of guided bronchoscopy for the evaluation of the pulmonary nodule. Chest. 2012;142:385–393.
37. Gex G, Pralong JA, Combescure C, et al. Diagnostic yield and safety of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy
for lung nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respiration. 2014;87:165–176.
38. Lee NK, Park CM, Kang CH, et al. CT-guided percutaneous transthoracic localization of pulmonary nodules prior to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery using barium suspension. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13:694–701.
39. Rotolo N, Floridi C, Imperatori A, et al. Comparison of cone-beam CT
-guided and CT fluoroscopy-guided transthoracic needle biopsy of lung nodules. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:381–389.
40. Abi-Jaoudeh N, Fisher T, Jacobus J, et al. Prospective randomized trial for image-guided biopsy using cone-beam ct
navigation compared with conventional CT. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27:1342–1349.
41. Pritchett M, Radaelli A, Schampaert S, et al. Cone Beam CT-guided endobronchial biopsy assisted by augmented fluoroscopy
. Chest. 2017;152:A877; Meeting Abstract.
42. de Groot JA, Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, et al. Verification problems in diagnostic accuracy studies: consequences and solutions. BMJ. 2011;343:d4770.
45. Braak SJ, van Strijen MJ, van Es HW, et al. Effective dose during needle interventions: cone-beam CT
guidance compared with conventional CT guidance. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22:455–461.
46. Hohenforst-Schmidt W, Zarogoulidis P, Vogl T, et al. Cone beam computertomography (CBCT) in interventional chest medicine—high feasibility for endobronchial realtime navigation. J Cancer. 2014;5:231–241.
47. Park SC, Kim CJ, Han CH, et al. Factors associated with the diagnostic yield of computed tomography-guided transbronchial lung biopsy. Thorac Cancer. 2017;8:153–158.
cone-beam CT; electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy; augmented fluoroscopy; lung cancer
Supplemental Digital Content
Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.