Esophageal Endosonography for the Diagnosis of Intrapulmonary Tumors:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Biopsy-based diagnosis in patients with paraesophageal intrapulmonary tumors suspected of lung cancer is crucial for adequate treatment planning. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the diagnosis of intrapulmonary tumors located near or adjacent to the esophagus. METHODS: We performed a systematic review (PROSPERO, CRD42016033737) and searched MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Previews, and Web of Science on September 22, 2016, without date or language restrictions. We included studies that evaluated the yield and/or sensitivity of EUS-FNA for diagnosing intrapulmonary tumors. Yield was defined as the number of patients in whom EUS-FNA made a biopsy-proven diagnosis (malignant or nonmalignant) relative to the total number of patients on whom EUS-FNA was performed. Sensitivity was defined as the number of patients in whom EUS-FNA made a biopsy-proven diagnosis of malignancy relative to the total number of patients in whom the tumor was found to be malignant. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 3,320 search results, 11 studies were included. Ten had a high risk of bias. The total number of patients was 313; the proportion of patients with malignancy ranged from 87 to 100% across these studies. The average yield was 0.90 (95% CI 0.82-0.95) and the average sensitivity was 0.92 (0.83-0.96). In the subgroup of prospective studies (n = 3), the average yield was 0.80 (0.56-0.93) and the average sensitivity was 0.83 (0.58-0.95). EUS-FNA-induced complications were reported for 5/256 patients (2.0%) for whom this information was available. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of high-quality studies is limited, these findings suggest that EUS-FNA is safe and has a high yield for diagnosing intrapulmonary tumors

Five-Year Survival After Endosonography vs Mediastinoscopy for Mediastinal Nodal Staging of Lung Cancer.

Lung cancer accounts for the highest cancer-related mortality rate worldwide.1 Accurate mediastinal nodal staging is crucial in the management of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) because it directs therapy and has prognostic value.2,

Endobronchial ultrasound in diagnosing and staging of lung cancer by Acquire 22G TBNB versus regular 22G TBNA needles:A randomized clinical trial

Objectives: Endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) has an important role in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. Evaluation of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and molecular profiling has become standard of care but cytological samples frequently contain insufficient tumor cells. The 22G Acquire needle with Franseen needle tip was developed to perform transbronchial needle biopsy (TBNB) with improved tissue specimens. This study evaluated if the 22G Acquire TBNB needle results in enhanced PD-L1 suitability rate compared to the regular Expect 22G TBNA needle. Methods:In this multi-center randomized clinical trial (Netherlands Trial Register NL7701), patients with suspected (N)SCLC and an indication for mediastinal/hilar staging or lung tumor diagnosis were recruited in five university and general hospitals in the Netherlands, Poland, Italy and Czech Republic. Patients were randomized (1:1) between the two needles. Two blinded reference pathologists evaluated the samples. The primary outcome was PD-L1 suitability rate in patients with a final diagnosis of lung cancer. In case no malignancy was diagnosed, the reference standard was surgical verification or 6 month follow-up. Results: 154 patients were randomized (n = 76 Acquire TBNB; n = 78 Expect TBNA) of which 92.9% (n = 143) had a final malignant diagnosis. Suitability for PD-L1 analysis was 80.0% (n = 56/70; 95 %CI 0.68–0.94) with the Acquire needle and 76.7% (n = 56/73; 95 %CI 0.65–0.85) with the Expect needle (p = 0.633). Acquire TBNB needle specimens provided more frequent superior quality (65.3% (95 %CI 0.57–0.73) vs 49.4% (95 %CI 0.41–0.57, p = 0.005) and contained more tissue cores (72.0% (95 %CI 0.60-0.81) vs 41.0% (95 %CI 0.31–0.54, p &lt; 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in tissue adequacy, suitability for molecular analysis and sensitivity for malignancy and N2/N3 disease. Conclusion: The 22G Acquire TBNB needle procured improved quality tissue specimens compared to the Expect TBNA needle but this did not result in an improved the suitability rate for PD-L1 analysis.</p

Nonnegative rank-preserving operators

AbstractAnalogues of characterizations of rank-preserving operators on field-valued matrices are determined for matrices witheentries in certain structures S contained in the nonnegative reals. For example, if S is the set of nonnegative members of a real unique factorization domain (e.g. the nonnegative reals or the nonnegative integers), M is the set of m×n matrices with entries in S, and min(m,n)⩾4, then a “linear” operator on M preserves the “rank” of each matrix in M if and only if it preserves the ranks of those matrices in M of ranks 1, 2, and 4. Notions of rank and linearity are defined analogously to the field-valued concepts. Other characterizations of rank-preserving operators for matrices over these and other structures S are also given

Diagnostic yield and safety of navigation bronchoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Navigation bronchoscopy has seen rapid development in the past decade in terms of new navigation techniques and multi-modality approaches utilizing different techniques and tools. This systematic review analyses the diagnostic yield and safety of navigation bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary nodules suspected of lung cancer. Methods: An extensive search was performed in Embase, Medline and Cochrane CENTRAL in May 2022. Eligible studies used cone-beam CT-guided navigation (CBCT), electromagnetic navigation (EMN), robotic navigation (RB) or virtual bronchoscopy (VB) as the primary navigation technique. Primary outcomes were diagnostic yield and adverse events. Quality of studies was assessed using QUADAS-2. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, with subgroup analyses for different navigation techniques, newer versus older techniques, nodule size, publication year, and strictness of diagnostic yield definition. Explorative analyses of subgroups reported by studies was performed for nodule size and bronchus sign. Results: A total of 95 studies (n = 10,381 patients; n = 10,682 nodules) were included. The majority (n = 63; 66.3%) had high risk of bias or applicability concerns in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. Summary diagnostic yield was 70.9% (95%-CI 68.4%-73.2%). Overall pneumothorax rate was 2.5%. Newer navigation techniques using advanced imaging and/or robotics (CBCT, RB, tomosynthesis guided EMN; n = 24 studies) had a statistically significant higher diagnostic yield compared to longer established techniques (EMN, VB; n = 82 studies): 77.5% (95%-CI 74.7%-80.1%) vs 68.8% (95%-CI 65.9%-71.6%) (p < 0.001). Explorative subgroup analyses showed that larger nodule size and bronchus sign presence were associated with a statistically significant higher diagnostic yield. Other subgroup analyses showed no significant differences. Conclusion: Navigation bronchoscopy is a safe procedure, with the potential for high diagnostic yield, in particular using newer techniques such as RB, CBCT and tomosynthesis-guided EMN. Studies showed a large amount of heterogeneity, making comparisons difficult. Standardized definitions for outcomes with relevant clinical context will improve future comparability

Effectiveness of FeNO-guided treatment in adult asthma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: Asthma control is generally monitored by assessing symptoms and lung function. However, optimal treatment is also dependent on the type and extent of airway inflammation. Fraction of exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) is a noninvasive biomarker of type 2 airway inflammation, but its effectiveness in guiding asthma treatment remains disputed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain summary estimates of the effectiveness of FeNO-guided asthma treatment. Design: We updated a Cochrane systematic review from 2016. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Subgroup analyses were performed based on asthma severity, asthma control, allergy/atopy, pregnancy and obesity. Data Sources: The Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register was searched on 9 May 2023. Eligibility Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of a FeNO-guided treatment versus usual (symptom-guided) treatment in adult asthma patients. Results: We included 12 RCTs (2,116 patients), all showing high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Five RCTs reported support from a FeNO manufacturer. FeNO-guided treatment probably reduces the number of patients having ≥1 exacerbation (OR = 0.61; 95%CI 0.44 to 0.83; six RCTs; GRADE moderate certainty) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.67; 95%CI 0.54 to 0.82; six RCTs; moderate certainty), and may slightly improve Asthma Control Questionnaire score (MD = −0.10; 95%CI −0.18 to −0.02, six RCTs; low certainty), however, this change is unlikely to be clinically important. An effect on severe exacerbations, quality of life, FEV1, treatment dosage and FeNO values could not be demonstrated. There were no indications that effectiveness is different in subgroups of patients, although evidence for subgroup analysis was limited. Conclusions: FeNO-guided asthma treatment probably results in fewer exacerbations but may not have clinically important effects on other asthma outcomes

Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts):checklist, explanation, and elaboration

For many users of the biomedical literature, abstracts may be the only source of information about a study. Hence, abstracts should allow readers to evaluate the objectives, key design features, and main results of the study. Several evaluations have shown deficiencies in the reporting of journal and conference abstracts across study designs and research fields, including systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Incomplete reporting compromises the value of research to key stakeholders. The authors of this article have developed a 12 item checklist of preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts). This article presents the checklist, examples of complete reporting, and explanations for each item of PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies

Het gevaar van ongepubliceerde onderzoeksresultaten

Unpublished and selectively published trial results may lead to distortion of the effectiveness and the profile of side effects of interventions. This jeopardizes patient safety and leads to unnecessary costs. Between 25 and 50% of all clinical trials remain unpublished. Primary outcomes, as originally defined in study protocols, often differ from those in the final publication. Positive trial results are almost 3 times as likely to be published as negative results. Commercial sponsorship is strongly associated with the publication of results that promote the interests of that sponsor, but non-publication and selective reporting is also frequent among non-commercial trials. Existing solutions, such as the requirement for prospective registration of trial protocols and the mandatory publication of trial results within 1 year after completion of the trial will only be successful if their compliance is more strictly monitore