Diagnostic Role of Bronchoscopic Brush Biopsy Guided  by Thin-Section Computed Tomography in Peripheral  Pulmonary Lesions

© 2022 by the Author(s). Licensee Whioce Publishing, USA. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

Download PDF

Cite

XML

HTML

Abstract

Objective: The diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) is important as they may be malignant. It is difficult to diagnose PPLs in the absence of a diagnostic guiding tool. Computed tomography (CT) thin-section multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images have been used as an alternative guide for bronchoscopic diagnosis of PPL. In this study, we aimed to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of MPR image guidance for PPL. Methods: Patients with PPL who underwent bronchoscopic brush biopsy guided by thoracic CT thinsection MPR images at our center were retrospectively reviewed. The distance of the lesion to the distal bronchus, the presence of the CT-Bronchus sign, the location of the PPL, and the size of the PPL were recorded from the hospital image record archive. The diagnosis rate was obtained from the procedure records. Results: The study included 92 cases. The mean PPL size was 40 ± 21 mm and the mean distal bronchial lesion distance was 27 ± 19 mm. A total of 49 (53.3%) patients had a positive CT-Bronchus sign. The diagnostic yield of the method was 48.9%. The diagnosis rate was significantly higher in patients with positive CT-Bronchus sign (67.3%) compared to those without (26.7%) (P = 0.001). Factors affecting the diagnosis in the logistic regression analysis were distal bronchial lesion distance, presence of CT-Bronchus sign, and localization of the lesion. Conclusion: CT thin-section MPR images can be used for bronchoscopy guidance in cases with PPL larger than 20 mm and positive CT-Bronchus sign in centers where an interventional radiology unit and other guidance tools are not available.

Keywords

Lung cancer

Computed tomography

Peripheral pulmonary lesion

References

1. Shepherd W. Image-guided bronchoscopy for peripheral pulmonary lesions, 2022. Viewed 01 May 2022, https://www.uptodate.com/contents/image-guided-bronchoscopy-for-biopsy-of-peripheral-pulmonary-lesions.
2. Mondoni M, Sotgiu G, Bonifazi M, et al, 2016, Transbronchial Needle Aspiration in Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur Respir J, 48(1): 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00051-2016.
3. Memoli JSW, Nietert PJ, Silvestri GA, 2012, Meta-Analysis of Guided Bronchoscopy for the Evaluation of the Pulmonary Nodule. Chest, 142(2): 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-1764.
4. Dhillon SS, Harris K, 2017, Bronchoscopy for the Diagnosis of Peripheral Lung Lesions. J Thorac Dis, 9(Suppl 10): S1047–S1058. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.05.48.
5. Kritek P. Bronchoscopy is Reasonably Good for Diagnosing Peripheral Lung Lesions, 2016. Viewed 01 May 2022, https://www.jwatch.org/na40307/2016/01/28/bronchoscopy-reasonably-good-diagnosing-peripheral-lung.
6. Silvestri GA, Gonzalez AV, Jantz MA, et al, 2013, Methods for Staging Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Diagnosis and Management of Lung Cancer, 3rd Ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest, 143(5 Suppl): e211S–e250S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-2355.
7. Rivera MP, Mehta AC, Wahidi MM, 2013, Establishing the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer: Diagnosis and Management of Lung Cancer, 3rd Ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest, 143(5 Suppl): e142S–e165S. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-2353.
8. Takeshita J, Masago K, Kato R, et al, 2015, CT-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Core Needle Biopsies of Pulmonary Lesions: A Single-Center Experience with 750 Biopsies in Japan. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 204(1): 29–34. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13151.
9. Manhire A, Charig M, Clelland C, et al, 2003, Guidelines for Radiologically Guided Lung Biopsy. Thorax, 58(11): 920–936. https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax.58.11.920.
10. Bhatt KM, Tandon YK, Graham R, et al, 2018, Electromagnetic Navigational Bronchoscopy versus CT-Guided Percutaneous Sampling of Peripheral Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules: A Cohort Study. Radiology, 286(3): 1052–1061. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170893.
11. Kovnat DM, Rath GS, Anderson WM, et al, 1975, Bronchial Brushing Through The Flexible Fiberoptic Bronchoscope in the Diagnosis of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions. Chest, 67(2): 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.67.2.179.
12. Chechani V, 1996, Bronchoscopic Diagnosis of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules and Lung Masses in the Absence of Endobronchial Abnormality. Chest, 109(3): 620–625. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.109.3.620.
13. Eberhardt R, Anantham D, Herth F, et al, 2007, Electromagnetic Navigation Diagnostic Bronchoscopy in Peripheral Lung Lesions. Chest, 131(6): 1800–1805. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.06-3016.
14. Chen A, Chenna P, Loiselle A, et al, 2014, Radial Probe Endobronchial Ultrasound for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions. A 5-Year Institutional Experience. Ann Am Thorac Soc, 11(4): 578–582. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201311-384OC.
15. Ozgul G, Cetinkaya E, Ozgul MA, et al, 2016, Efficacy and Safety of Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy With or Without Radial Endobronchial Ultrasound for Peripheral Lung Lesions. Endosc Ultrasound, 5(3): 189–195. https://doi.org/10.4103/2303-9027.183979.
16. Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X, et al, 2016, Diagnostic Yield and Complications of Bronchoscopy for Peripheral Lung Lesions. Results of the AQuIRE Registry. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 193(1): 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201507-1332OC.
17. Winantea J, Eisenmann S, Darwiche K, 2016, Virtual Bronchoscopic Navigation: Advantages and Limitations for the Diagnosis of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions. European Respiratory J, 48(suppl 60): PA4678. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2016.PA4678.
18. Asano F, Ishida T, Shinagawa N, et al, 2017, Virtual Bronchoscopic Navigation Without X-Ray Fluoroscopy to Diagnose Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: A Randomized Trial. BMC Pulm Med, 17(1): 184. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-017-0531-2.
19. Bo L, Li C, Pan L, et al, 2019, Diagnosing a Solitary Pulmonary Nodule Using Multiple Bronchoscopic Guided Technologies: A Prospective Randomized Study. Lung Cancer, 129: 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.01.006.
20. Yarmus L, Akulian J, Wahidi M, et al, 2020, A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study of Three Guided Bronchoscopic Approaches for Investigating Pulmonary Nodules. Chest, 157(3): 694–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.10.016.
21. Miyoshi S, Isobe K, Shimizu H, et al, 2019, The Utility of Virtual Bronchoscopy Using a Computed Tomography Workstation for Conducting Conventional Bronchoscopy: A Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Practice. Respiration, 97(1): 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1159/000492074.
22. Biswas A, Mehta HJ, Sriram PS, 2019, Diagnostic Yield of the Virtual Bronchoscopic Navigation System Guided Sampling of Peripheral Lung Lesions using Ultrathin Bronchoscope and Protected Bronchial Brush. Turk Thorac J, 20(1): 6–11. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkThoracJ.2018.18030.
23. Oki M, Saka H, Asano F, et al, 2019, Use of an Ultrathin vs Thin Bronchoscope for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: A Randomized Trial. Chest, 156(5): 954–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.038.
24. De Roza MA, Quah KH, Tay CK, et al, 2016, Diagnosis of Peripheral Lung Lesions via Conventional Flexible Bronchoscopy with Multiplanar CT Planning. Pulm Med, 2016: 5048961. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5048961.
25. Ali MS, Sethi J, Taneja A, et al, 2018, Computed Tomography Bronchus Sign and the Diagnostic Yield of Guided Bronchoscopy for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann Am Thorac Soc, 15(8): 978–987. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201711-856OC.

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Previous article in this issue

Next article in this issue