Evidence Hub

Predictors of diagnostic yield in bronchoscopy: a retrospective cohort study comparing different combinations of sampling techniques

Roth K, Hardie JA, Andreassen AH, Leh F, Eagan TM

BMC pulmonary medicine, 2008

363 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The reported diagnostic yield from bronchoscopies in patients with lung cancer varies greatly. The optimal combination of sampling techniques has not been finally established. The objectives of this study were to find the predictors of diagnostic yield in bronchoscopy and to evaluate different combinations of sampling techniques.

METHODS: All bronchoscopies performed on suspicion of lung malignancy in 2003 and 2004 were reviewed, and 363 patients with proven malignant lung disease were included in the study. Sampling techniques performed were biopsy, transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), brushing, small volume lavage (SVL), and aspiration of fluid from the entire procedure. Logistic regression analyses were adjusted for sex, age, endobronchial visibility, localization (lobe), distance from carina, and tumor size.

RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for a positive diagnostic yield through all procedures were 17.0 (8.5-34.0) for endobronchial lesions, and 2.6 (1.3-5.2) for constriction/compression, compared to non-visible lesions; 3.8 (1.3-10.7) for lesions > 4 cm, 6.7 (2.1-21.8) for lesions 3-4 cm, and 2.5 (0.8-7.9) for lesions 2-3 cm compared with lesions <= 2 cm. The combined diagnostic yield of biopsy and TBNA was 83.7% for endobronchial lesions and 54.2% for the combined group without visible lesions. This was superior to either technique alone, whereas additional brushing, SVL, and aspiration did not significantly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 363 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free