Abstract
Background
We assessed the performance of Electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (ENB) as a standalone diagnostic technique and the performance of different sampling tools used during the procedure.
Methods
We recruited 160 consecutive patients who underwent ENB for peripheral lung lesions (PLL) at a tertiary care centre. The diagnostic performance of ENB and sampling tools was assessed using a logistic regression model and a ROC-curve in which the dependent variable was diagnostic success. A multivariate model was built to predict diagnostic success before performing ENB to select the best candidates for the procedure.
Results
Most patients with PLLs in the study were male (65%), with a mean age of 67.9 years. The yield was 66% when the most common techniques were used together as suction catheter + transbronchial biopsy forceps (TBBx) + bronchoalveolar lavage + bronchial washing (p < 0.001) and increased to 69% when transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) and cytology brush were added (p < 0.001). Adding diagnostic techniques such as TBBx and TBNA resulted in an increase in diagnostic performance, with a statistically significant trend (p = 0.002). The logistic model area-under the ROC-curve for diagnostic success during ENB was 0.83 (95% CI:0.75–0.90; p < 0.001), and a logit value ≥ 0.12 was associated with ≥ 50% probability of diagnostic success.
Conclusions
ENB, as a stand-alone diagnostic tool for the evaluation of PLLs when performed by experienced operators using a multi-modality technique, has a good diagnostic yield. The probability of having a diagnostic ENB could be assessed using the proposed model.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Introduction
Lung cancer screening programmes and the widespread availability of computed tomography (CT) of the chest have increased the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules [1,2,3]. Tools such as positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) evaluation have decreased the need for unnecessary solitary pulmonary nodules resection [4]. Nevertheless, it has diagnostic limitations and might not be universally available [5]. The yield of conventional bronchoscopy in peripheral lung lesions (PLLs) is limited [6], as low as 14% for those in the outer periphery [7, 8]. Electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (ENB) provides a safe and higher-yield diagnostic procedure for the evaluation of PLLs [9,10,11,12]. Its yield can be significantly affected by the simultaneous use of other tools such as radial endobronchial ultrasound (r-EBUS), fluoroscopy, rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), or whether the procedure is done under moderate sedation vs. general anesthesia [13, 14]. With over 30 studies reporting on endoscopic ENB yield, most of them have used one or more of the above supporting diagnostic tools and techniques [6, 10, 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Therefore, data on the stand-alone diagnostic performance of ENB are limited [39, 45, 46]. We sought to identify the performance of ENB as a stand-alone diagnostic technique and the effect of the various sampling techniques used during the procedure.
Methods
Observational analytical single-center study performed in a prospective institutional registry of patients with peripheral pulmonary lesions of the Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital in Madrid, attached to the Autonomous University of Madrid with patients who were recruited to be included in the NAVIGATE study [10]. The primary goals of the study included the identification of variables predicting the yield of ENB as a stand-alone diagnostic technique. Secondary aims included ENB yield after an 18-month follow-up period, yield of individual tissue-sampling tools, and pneumothorax rate.
Eligibility criteria
The eligibility criteria included consecutive patients who underwent ENB for the work-up of PLLs and who had clinical and radiological data available during an 18-month follow-up period (spanning from July 2011 to October 2015). Exclusion criteria included difficulties tolerating moderate sedation, evidence of a visible endobronchial lesion, or a different ENB indication, such as fiducial marker placement.
Clinical variables
Demographics, smoking history, presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [47, 48], COPD severity [47], and previous lung metastasis from extrathoracic primary (extrathoracic cancer). Never-smokers and those who had quit for > 15 years were labelled as “non-smokers”. Nodule characteristics recorded included size in its three spatial axes [x, y, z], largest diameter on any axis [49], lobar location [16], fissure attachment (fissure adherence involving at least 1/3 of the lesion), pleural attachment, distance to the pleura, and bronchus sign [50]. A PET/CT standardized uptake value (SUV) of ≥ 3 was considered suspicious for malignancy.
ENB System
The system included the superDimension™ navigation system software version 6.0 (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), the Edge™ locatable guide, and the Edge™ 180° degree firm extended working channel. A therapeutic, flexible video bronchoscope with a 2.8-mm working channel was used in all procedures (Olympus; Tokyo, Japan).
Procedure and sample processing
ENB was performed in a standard fashion following the manufacturer’s protocol [51]. The lesions in which ENB was not diagnostic underwent chest CT-guided biopsy, endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS), or thoracic surgery.
ENB samples that yielded specific diagnoses (both benign and malignant), corroborated by surgical biopsy/resection results, clinical and imaging follow-up, or, in the case of benign disease, clinical and imaging assessments, were classified as diagnostic ENB. In contrast, ENB was categorized as non-diagnostic when it failed to provide a specific diagnosis. In cases of non-diagnostic ENB, we determined the final diagnosis through alternative procedures, including thoracic surgery, CT-guided biopsy, or linear EBUS (EBUS-TBNA). For patients who underwent surgery following a diagnostic ENB sample (i.e., therapeutic lung tumour resection), we based the final diagnosis on the histological examination of the surgical specimen. Additionally, we followed up patients for at least 18 months, during which clinical and imaging examinations were conducted to evaluate the consistency or discrepancy with the ENB results.
All patients had chest CT scan images obtained on Digital Images and Communications in Medicine format with a 512 × 512 resolution, a slice thickness of 1 mm, and an overlap of 0.8 mm. Images were uploaded using iLogic® software to create a three-dimensional road map. Sedation and monitoring during bronchoscopy were conducted according to the recommendations of the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery [52] and the American College of Chest Physicians [53]. Topical anaesthesia was provided with lidocaine. Intravenous midazolam (median dose, 4.5 mg) and fentanyl (median dose, 100 µg) were used for moderate sedation. General anaesthesia, fluoroscopy, ROSE, or r-EBUS were not used during any ENB procedure.
Tools and techniques used during ENB included: suction catheter [24], transbronchial biopsy forceps (TBBx), cytology brush (CB), transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), and bronchial washing. Supplementary Table 1 provides individual technique details.
Sample size
We estimated that the study would require a minimum sample size of 160 patients to have a least 80 patients with the outcome (diagnostic ENB) in the more demanding scenario of 50% of patients with diagnostic ENB [54, 55]. These 80 patients would be sufficient to build a binary logistic regression multivariate model with 8 covariates (10 patients with the outcome per covariates).
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using STATA version 17 software (STATA Corp., Texas, USA). Descriptive statistics for all continuous variables were summarised as means, standard deviations (SD), medians, and interquartile ranges. Frequency distributions and percentages were reported for discrete variables. The association between each variable and the diagnostic yield was analysed. For each outcome, associations with the corresponding set of variables were checked by χ2 or Fisher’s exact test (for categorical variables). Confidence intervals (CI), odds ratios (OR), and p-values were reported; two-tailed p values of less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted, and the area under the ROC curve was calculated. We evaluated the statistical significance of the trend in the use of combined techniques using the Cochran–Armitage statistical test.
Results
Demographic characteristics and key results
ENB was performed on 173 patients, but 13 patients were excluded according to eligibility criteria. The mean age was 67.9 years (SD:11), and 65% were male (104/160) (Table 1). While we did not collect specific procedure time data for individual patients, it is worth noting that, on average, each ENB procedure at our institution typically lasts approximately 90 min. The overall diagnostic yield was 69.4%, based on 18-month follow-up data. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) were 59%, 100%, 45.6%, and 100%, respectively.
Univariate analysis of diagnostic yield
ENB yielded a diagnostic result in 111 out of 160 cases (69.4%). In the remaining 49 cases with non-diagnostic ENB, the diagnosis was established through thoracic surgery in 38 cases (77.5%), CT-guided biopsy in 5 cases (10.2%), Linear EBUS (EBUS-TBNA) in 3 cases (6.1%), and other procedures in 3 cases (6.1%) (Fig. 1).
The diagnostic yields in patients with and without a history of extrathoracic cancer were 32% and 68%, respectively (p = 0.001) (Table 2). In patients with perifissural lesions, the yield decreased 17% compared to patients without these lesions (56% vs. 73%; p = 0.054), and lesions located in the inferior lobes presented a diagnostic yield of 65%. 74.4% (119/160) received a diagnosis of malignant tumour, 23.1% of benign tumour (37/160) and 2.5% of infections (4/160). The diagnostic yield of malignant tumours of primary pulmonary origin was 59%, metastatic lesions of extrathoracic origin 22%, and benign tumours 100%.
Multivariate analysis of factors affecting diagnostic yields
We identified several factors increasing the diagnostic yield, including lesion size of ≥ 15 mm in the Z axis, presence of bronchus sign, smoking history, and age > 75. On the other hand, the yield was decreased by factors like history of extrathoracic malignancy, perifissural lesions and location in lower lobes (Table 3). A prediction equation was developed using these variables (Table 4). The area under the ROC curve of the predictive model for diagnostic success during ENB was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75–0.90; p < 0.001) (Fig. 2). We found that when the PLLs were identified as metastatic, the diagnosis decreased the ENB yield by 85%, with an OR of 0.15 (95% CI: 0.03–0.54; p = 0.01). The malignancy rate was higher for SU ≥ 3 (Supplementary Table 2).
ENB Diagnosis at 18-month follow-up
The diagnostic yield of ENB was 69.4% (111/160). Of the patients who obtained a false negative by means of ENB, 100% (49/49) were eventually diagnosed with a malignant tumour. By contrast, in the patients whose diagnosis was confirmed, they presented a non-malignant diagnosis of 36.9% (41/111) and a malignant diagnosis of 63.0% (70/111). The diagnostic algorithm after an 18-month follow-up is shown in Fig. 1.
Yield of bronchoscopic sampling techniques
CB and TBBx provided the highest yields, 51% and 53%, respectively (Table 5). Bronchial washing had the lowest yield (30%). The yield was around 66% when the suction catheter, TBBx, BAL, and CB were combined. Adding diagnostic techniques such as TBBx and TBNA increased the diagnostic performance and showed a statistically significant trend (p = 0.011; p = 0.045 and p = 0.002) (Fig. 3a and supplementary Fig. 1). Additionally, the combined use of TBNA or CB with other diagnostic techniques showed a significant increase in performance, with a significant trend (Fig. 3b).
Diagnostic yield of the TBNA and CB with others sampling techniques. Notes: TBBx Transbronchial biopsies, BAL Bronchoalveolar lavage, CB Cytology brush, TBNA Transbronchial needle aspiration. *trend in the use of transbronchial needle aspiration with other combined techniques (Cochran–Armitage statistical test). ** trend in the use of cytology brush with other combined techniques (Cochran–Armitage statistical test)
Safety and pneumothorax
Pneumothorax occurred in 7.5% (12/160) of the procedures, but only 2.5% (4/120) required drainage. In total, 51 TBNA were performed, of which 7.8% (4/51) had pneumothorax as a complication. There was no statistical association between pneumothorax and the sampling tool used (Supplementary Table 3). No individual factor increased the pneumothorax risk.
Discussion
We found a good diagnostic yield based on 18-month follow-up data and using ENB as a stand-alone diagnostic tool. This number is in the range of reported pooled yields (58.6%–84%) [6, 23, 29, 33, 35, 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 56,57,58], it represents an average assessment of ENB. Our diagnostic yield is good when taking into account that our mean nodule diameter was smaller than those described in diagnostic ENB studies (Supplementary Table 4) [6, 23, 29, 33, 35, 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 56,57,58].
Several studies are similar to ours, since they used only ENB for all of their cases [42, 45, 56,57,58]. For example, Bertoletti showed a yield of 77.4% but with a much larger nodule diameter (31.2 vs. 16 mm) [45]. Ozgul et al. examined ENB yield in 56 cases, but r-EBUS was used in 26 of those cases [39]. The yield for non-r-EBUS cases was 71.4%, which is similar to our study. Further, Raval and Amir reported an 83.3% yield with a relatively small lesion size (19.3 mm) [46]. Although only ENB was used, they utilised a tidal volume expiration mapped ENB (Veran Medical Technologies), which limits the comparison.
Some of our independent yield predictors have been previously identified in studies with multivariate analysis [14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 27, 49]. For example, smoking history increased our yield by sevenfold. Ost et al. also reported a smoking association, less strong [14]. The effect of smoking might be related to the localised distortion effect that it generates at the bronchial architecture level, triggered by the chronic inflammatory effect [47]. This could facilitate locatable guide access to nearby solitary pulmonary nodules. The presence of a bronchus sign on CT increased the yield by fourfold. Seijo et al. reported such an association with an eightfold increase in yield [42]. Our study confirms their findings, as a bronchus sign increased performance by 17% compared to patients without bronchial signs in our sample. Since bronchus sign was only present in about 50% of the patients, for cases without bronchus sign, it is our practice to make strategies, such as modifying the location of the locatable guidewire on at least two occasions, while obtaining transbronchial biopsies to avoid the “all-or-none” diagnostic phenomenon [14]. On this wise, samples are collected from various regions close to the lesion. We have yet to verify this fact, but we believe that it could mitigate the effect of not presenting the bronchus sign.
PLLs in the lower lobes decreased our yield by close to 80% [16, 22]. This could be explained by diaphragmatic movement during inspiration, with a difference in PLLs location of up to 2.5 cm. [22, 59] Lesion diameter of > 20 mm in its largest axis [14, 49] and > 30 mm18 correlated with higher diagnostic yield in other studies. For us, a lesion size of ≥ 15 mm in the Z axis increased the yield close to fivefold. We postulate that a larger lesion on the Z-axis might provide better endobronchial exposure. This requires additional validation. Perifissural lesions decreased the diagnostic yield; this might occur because of a reduction in bronchus size and a more tortuous airway pattern, limiting the advance of the locatable guide. Age of ≥ 75 increased our ENB yield by 4.8-fold. The rationale for this effect is unclear.
One of the clinical factors that negatively modify diagnostic yield is presenting a personal history of previous extrathoracic cancer before ENB [60]. Those patients had a higher percentage of metastatic PLLs compared to those without a history of extrathoracic cancer: 25% (13/51) vs. 4.5% (5/109), respectively. In turn, PLLs of metastatic origin decreased the yield by 85%, with an OR of 0.15. Two studies assessed a history of extrathoracic cancer previous to ENB and suspicion of metastatic PLLs as factors decreasing the diagnostic yield of ENB [22, 23]. We believe the reasons for the decrease in profitability are that most metastases of tumours at the lung level are due to hematogenous dissemination and, additionally, to the development of a metastatic niche that provides the adequate microenvironment for the implantation and growth of disseminated tumour cells [60, 61]. Tsuboi et al. [62] documented a significant difference in the bronchoscopy yield of peripheral lung lesions secondary to primary bronchogenic malignancies versus lung metastases, at 76.5% versus 29.1%, respectively. They found that bronchial airway exposure was present in only 5.1% of the metastases < 2 cm in size. Pulmonary metastases follow a hematogenous spread and are surrounded by non-malignant tissue (fibroblasts, neovasculature, inflammatory cells, and extracellular matrix) [60, 61]. Such dissemination patterns compared to those of bronchogenic carcinoma nodules, plus limited endobronchial exposure, might explain the lower yield observed [62, 63]. We believe that this fact is of great importance for ENB and at the level of bronchoscopy as a diagnostic technique in pulmonology. Finally, using the independent variables associated with the diagnostic yield, we generated a model to predict the diagnostic yield of ENB with good discriminating capacity (area under the ROC curve: 0.83). We plan to validate this model in a future prospective study.
We also assessed the diagnostic performance of the tools and techniques used during ENB [14]. Combination of multiple sampling techniques, particularly TBBx and TBNA, positively impacted the diagnostic yield and a diagnostic yield of 69% was reached when the most common individual techniques were used together: suction catheter + TBBx + BAL + CB + TBNA + bronchial washing (Table 5). Chao et al. also noticed a significant yield increase (18%) when TBNA was added to r-EBUS (78.4%) compared to TBBx and bronchial washing without TBNA (60.6%) [64]. In general, TBNA appears to be underutilised [14], even in cases with pleural distance of ≥ 10 mm. This is likely due to technical difficulties manoeuvring the needle in more distal locations and to concerns about a higher pneumothorax risk. However, in our study, its use was not associated with an increased incidence of pneumothorax. Most needle-associated pneumothorax risk have been extrapolated from CT-guided TTNA data (pneumothorax as high as 23%, up to ¼ requiring chest tube drainage) [65]. We believe that TBNA is a safe tool for lesions ≥ 10 mm from the pleura, as seen in our study and recently confirmed in the large multicentre NAVIGATE study [10].
Finally, since our study used stand-alone ENB under moderate sedation, it is possible that the routine use of additional diagnostic tools or general anaesthesia could increase the yield of ENB [14, 22, 29, 33]. For example, Eberhardt et al. reported an 88% yield for combined ENB + r-EBUS versus r-EBUS (69%) or ENB (59%) alone [22]. Our study bears several limitations, including its single-centre, retrospective observational nature, which exposes it to the risk of an unmeasured confounder and might limit the generalisability of the results. Further, our samples were analysed by the same pathologist. This can introduce bias to the diagnostic yield of various sampling techniques once an initial sample is diagnostic. We did not use fluoroscopy, r-EBUS, or ROSE, which could have potentially increased our diagnostic yield; therefore, our results apply mainly to studies not using such techniques.
Conclusion
Our findings show that ENB, as a stand-alone diagnostic technique using a multimodality sampling method under moderate sedation, has a good diagnostic yield, mainly in the presence of the bronchus sign and the use of TBNA, without increasing the risk of pneumothorax. Notably, we generated a predictive model for ENB diagnostic yield, which should be prospectively validated to provide more clarity regarding the optimal selection of patients undergoing ENB.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Lillington GA. Management of solitary pulmonary nodules. Dis Mon. 1991;37:271–318.
Marrer E, Jolly D, Arveux P, Lejeune C, Woronoff-Lemsi MC, Jegu J, Guillemin F, Velten M. Incidence of solitary pulmonary nodules in Northeastern France: a population-based study in five regions. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:47.
National Lung Screening Trial Research T, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, Gareen IF, Gatsonis C, Marcus PM, Sicks JD. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:395–409.
Patel VK, Naik SK, Naidich DP, Travis WD, Weingarten JA, Lazzaro R, Gutterman DD, Wentowski C, Grosu HB, Raoof S. A practical algorithmic approach to the diagnosis and management of solitary pulmonary nodules: part 1: radiologic characteristics and imaging modalities. Chest. 2013;143:825–39.
Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2001;285:914–24.
Schwarz Y, Greif J, Becker HD, Ernst A, Mehta A. Real-time electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy to peripheral lung lesions using overlaid CT images: the first human study. Chest. 2006;129:988–94.
Rivera MP, Mehta AC, Wahidi MM. 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. 2013;143:E142–65.
Baaklini WA, Reinoso MA, Gorin AB, Sharafkaneh A, Manian P. Diagnostic yield of fiberoptic bronchoscopy in evaluating solitary pulmonary nodules. Chest. 2000;117:1049–54.
Gex G, Pralong JA, Combescure C, Seijo L, Rochat T, Soccal PM. Diagnostic yield and safety of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy for lung nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respiration. 2014;87:165–76.
Khandhar SJ, Bowling MR, Flandes J, Gildea TR, Hood KL, Krimsky WS, Minnich DJ, Murgu SD, Pritchett M, Toloza EM, Wahidi MM, Wolvers JJ, Folch EE, Investigators NS. 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.
Wang Memoli JS, Nietert PJ, Silvestri GA. Meta-analysis of guided bronchoscopy for the evaluation of the pulmonary nodule. Chest. 2012;142:385–93.
Zhang W, Chen S, Dong X, Lei P. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic yield and safety of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy for lung nodules. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:799–809.
Mehta AC, Hood KL, Schwarz Y, Solomon SB. The Evolutional History of Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy: State of the Art. Chest. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/jchest201804029.
Ost E, Ernst A, Lei X, Kovitz KL, Benzaquen S, Diaz-Mendoza J, Greenhill S, Toth J, Feller-Kopman D, Puchalski J, Baram D, Karunakara R, Jimenez CA, Filner JJ, Morice RC, Eapen GA, Michaud GC, Estrada YMRM, Rafeq S, Grosu HB, Ray C, Gilbert CR, Yarmus LB, Simoff M, Registry AQB. 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.
Al-Jaghbeer M, Marcus M, Durkin M, McGuire FR, Iftikhar IH. Diagnostic yield of electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2016;10:295–9.
Balbo PE, Bodini BD, Patrucco F, Della Corte F, Zanaboni S, Bagnati P, Andorno S, Magnani C. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy and rapid on site evaluation added to fluoroscopy-guided assisted bronchoscopy and rapid on site evaluation: improved yield in pulmonary nodules. Minerva Chir. 2013;68:579–85.
Becker HD, Herth F, Ernst A, Schwarz Y. Bronchoscopic Biopsy of Peripheral Lung Lesions Under Electromagnetic Guidance: A Pilot Study. Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology. 2005;12:9–13.
Bowling MR, Kohan MW, Walker P, Efird J, Ben Or S. The effect of general anesthesia versus intravenous sedation on diagnostic yield and success in electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2015;22:5–13.
Brownback KR, Quijano F, Latham HE, Simpson SQ. Electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of lung lesions. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2012;19:91–7.
Chee A, Stather DR, Maceachern P, Martel S, Delage A, Simon M, Dumoulin E, Tremblay A. Diagnostic utility of peripheral endobronchial ultrasound with electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy in peripheral lung nodules. Respirology. 2013;18:784–9.
Copeland S, Kambali S, Berdine G, Alalawi R. Electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. The Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles. 2017;5:12–6.
Eberhardt R, Anantham D, Ernst A, Feller-Kopman D, Herth F. Multimodality bronchoscopic diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176:36–41.
Eberhardt R, Anantham D, Herth F, Feller-Kopman D, Ernst A. Electromagnetic navigation diagnostic bronchoscopy in peripheral lung lesions. Chest. 2007;131:1800–5.
Eberhardt R, Morgan RK, Ernst A, Beyer T, Herth FJ. Comparison of suction catheter versus forceps biopsy for sampling of solitary pulmonary nodules guided by electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy. Respiration. 2010;79:54–60.
Flenaugh EL, Mohammed KH. Initial Experience Using 4D Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy System With Tip Tracked Instruments For Localization of Peripheral Lung Nodules. Int J Pulm Med. 2016;18:1–7.
Garwood SK, ClenDening P, Hevelone ND, Hood KL, Pidgeon S, Wudel LJ Jr. Navigational bronchoscopy at a community hospital: clinical and economic outcomes. Lung Cancer Manag. 2016;5:131–40.
Gildea TR, Mazzone PJ, Karnak D, Meziane M, Mehta AC. Electromagnetic navigation diagnostic bronchoscopy: a prospective study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174:982–9.
Hautmann H, Schneider A, Pinkau T, Peltz F, Feussner H. Electromagnetic catheter navigation during bronchoscopy: validation of a novel method by conventional fluoroscopy. Chest. 2005;128:382–7.
Karnak D, Ciledag A, Ceyhan K, Atasoy C, Akyar S, Kayacan O. Rapid on-site evaluation and low registration error enhance the success of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy. Ann Thorac Med. 2013;8:28–32.
Khan AY, Berkowitz D, Krimsky WS, Hogarth DK, Parks C, Bechara R. Safety of pacemakers and defibrillators in electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy. Chest. 2013;143:75–81.
Lamprecht B, Porsch P, Pirich C, Studnicka M. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy in combination with PET-CT and rapid on-site cytopathologic examination for diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions. Lung. 2009;187:55–9.
Lamprecht B, Porsch P, Wegleitner B, Strasser G, Kaiser B, Studnicka M. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB): Increasing diagnostic yield. Respir Med. 2012;106:710–5.
Loo FL, Halligan AM, Port JL, Hoda RS. The emerging technique of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy-guided fine-needle aspiration of peripheral lung lesions: promising results in 50 lesions. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122:191–9.
Mahajan AK, Patel S, Hogarth DK, Wightman R. Electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy: an effective and safe approach to diagnose peripheral lung lesions unreachable by conventional bronchoscopy in high-risk patients. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2011;18:133–7.
Makris D, Scherpereel A, Leroy S, Bouchindhomme B, Faivre JB, Remy J, Ramon P, Marquette CH. Electromagnetic navigation diagnostic bronchoscopy for small peripheral lung lesions. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:1187–92.
Mohanasundaram U, Ho LA, Kuschner WG, Chitkara RK, Canfield J, Canfield LM, Krishna G. The Diagnostic Yield of Navigational Bronchoscopy Performed with Propofol Deep Sedation. ISRN Endoscopy. 2013;2013:1–5.
Mukherjee S, Chacey M. Diagnostic Yield of Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy Using a Curved-tip Catheter to Aid in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Lesions. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2017;24:35–9.
Odronic SI, Gildea TR, Chute DJ. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy-guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of lung lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42:1045–50.
Ozgul G, Cetinkaya E, Ozgul MA, Abul Y, Gencoglu A, Kamiloglu E, Gul S, Dincer HE. Efficacy and safety of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy with or without radial endobronchial ultrasound for peripheral lung lesions. Endosc Ultrasound. 2016;5:189–95.
Pearlstein DP, Quinn CC, Burtis CC, Ahn KW, Katch AJ. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy performed by thoracic surgeons: one center’s early success. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:944–9 (discussion 949-950).
Saenghirunvattana S, Bechara R, Saenghirunvattana C, Gonzales MC, Sutthisri K, Siangpro C. Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy. BKK Med J. 2017;13:37–40.
Seijo LM, de Torres JP, Lozano MD, Bastarrika G, Alcaide AB, Lacunza MM, Zulueta JJ. 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;138:1316–21.
Sun JY, Xie FF, Zheng XX, Jiang YF, Zhu L, Mao XW, Han BH. Learning curve of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy for diagnosing peripheral pulmonary nodules in a single institution. Transl Cancer Res. 2017;6:541–51.
Wilson DS, Bartlett RJ. Improved Diagnostic Yield of Bronchoscopy in a Community Practice: Combination of Electromagnetic Navigation System and Rapid On-site Evaluation. Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology. 2007;14:227–32.
Bertoletti L, Robert A, Cottier M, Chambonniere ML, Vergnon JM. Accuracy and feasibility of electromagnetic navigated bronchoscopy under nitrous oxide sedation for pulmonary peripheral opacities: an outpatient study. Respiration. 2009;78:293–300.
Raval AA, Amir L. Community hospital experience using electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy system integrating tidal volume computed tomography mapping. Lung Cancer Manag. 2016;5:9–19.
From the Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017. Available at: http://goldcopd.org., 2017,
Miravitlles M, Soler-Cataluna JJ, Calle M, Molina J, Almagro P, Quintano JA, Riesco JA, Trigueros JA, Pinera P, Simon A, Rodriguez-Hermosa JL, Marco E, Lopez D, Coll R, Coll-Fernandez R, Lobo MA, Diez J, Soriano JB, Ancochea J. Spanish guideline for COPD (GesEPOC) Update 2014. Arch Bronconeumol. 2014;50 Suppl 1:1–16.
Jensen KW, Hsia DW, Seijo LM, Feller-Kopman DJ, Lamb C, Berkowitz D, Curran-Everett D, Musani AI. Multicenter experience with electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of pulmonary nodules. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2012;19:195–9.
Naidich DP, Sussman R, Kutcher WL, Aranda CP, Garay SM, Ettenger NA. Solitary pulmonary nodules. CT-bronchoscopic correlation. Chest. 1988;93:595–8.
Leong S, Ju H, Marshall H, Bowman R, Yang I, Ree AM, Saxon C, Fong KM. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy: A descriptive analysis. J Thorac Dis. 2012;4:173–85.
Flandes Aldeyturriaga J, Ortega Gonzalez A. Manual de Procedimientos SEPAR: Necesidades y organizacion de una unidad de endoscopia respiratoria. Barcelona: SEPAR; 2008.
Wahidi MM, Jain P, Jantz M, Lee P, Mackensen GB, Barbour SY, Lamb C, Silvestri GA. American College of Chest Physicians consensus statement on the use of topical anesthesia, analgesia, and sedation during flexible bronchoscopy in adult patients. Chest. 2011;140:1342–50.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Special Topics. In: Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX, editors. Applied Logistic Regression. 3rd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2013. p. 401–8.
Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1373–9.
Yutaka Y, Sato T, Isowa M, Murata Y, Tanaka S, Yamada Y, Ohsumi A, Nakajima D, Hamaji M, Menju T, Chen-Yoshikawa TF, Date H. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy versus virtual bronchoscopy navigation for improving the diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions: analysis of the predictors of successful diagnosis. Surg Today. 2022;52:923–30.
Oh JH, Choi CM, Kim S, Jang SJ, Oh SY, Kim MY, Hwang HS, Ji W. Diagnostic Performance of Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy-Guided Biopsy for Lung Nodules in the Era of Molecular Testing. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11:1432.
Kim YW, Kim HJ, Song MJ, Kwon BS, Lim SY, Lee YJ, Park JS, Cho YJ, Yoon HI, Lee JH, Lee CT. Utility and safety of sole electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy under moderate sedation for lung cancer diagnosis. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2022;11:462–71.
Chen A, Pastis N, Furukawa B, Silvestri GA. The effect of respiratory motion on pulmonary nodule location during electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy. Chest. 2015;147:1275–81.
Klemm F, Joyce JA. Microenvironmental regulation of therapeutic response in cancer. Trends Cell Biol. 2015;25:198–213.
Psaila B, Lyden D. The metastatic niche: adapting the foreign soil. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:285–93.
Tsuboi E, Ikeda S, Tajima M, Shimosato Y, Ishikawa S. Transbronchial biopsy smear for diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary carcinomas. Cancer. 1967;20:687–98.
Chhajed PN, Bernasconi M, Gambazzi F, Bubendorf L, Rasch H, Kneifel S, Tamm M. Combining bronchoscopy and positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of the small pulmonary nodule < or = 3 cm. Chest. 2005;128:3558–64.
Chao TY, Chien MT, Lie CH, Chung YH, Wang JL, Lin MC. Endobronchial ultrasonography-guided transbronchial needle aspiration increases the diagnostic yield of peripheral pulmonary lesions: a randomized trial. Chest. 2009;136:229–36.
Yeow KM, Su IH, Pan KT, Tsay PK, Lui KW, Cheung YC, Chou AS. Risk factors of pneumothorax and bleeding: multivariate analysis of 660 CT-guided coaxial cutting needle lung biopsies. Chest. 2004;126:748–54.
Acknowledgements
The authors are most thankful for the University Hospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, and Universidad de La Sabana.
Funding
This work was supported by Universidad de la Sabana, University Hospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz (grant EO 29/2016_FJD), and Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JF, FBMM, JJC, AM, FJS, and LFGC conceptualised this project, contributed to data collection, and wrote the original draft. ETQ, and LFGC, contributed to the statistical analysis and writing of the final version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the current Helsinki Declaration, as well as local, regional, and international regulations pertaining to clinical research, including Spain's Law 14/2007, of July 3, on Biomedical Research. Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee of the Fundación Jiménez-Díaz (protocol EO 29/2016_FJD). Prior to participating in the study, all participants provided written informed consent, and the confidentiality of their data was strictly maintained throughout the study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
JF has received honorarium as consultant and educational programs for Olympus, Gala, PulmonX and Medtronic, is also a principal investigator in Europe for the NAVIGATE study. AM has received honorarium as consultant and educational programs for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Pinnacle Biologics, Praxis Medical and UpToDate; is also the principal investigator for EMPROVE, LIBERATE and PRECISE trials. FBMM, JJCR, FJS, ETQ, and LFGC declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1.
Sampling tools and techniques used during ENB. Supplementary Table 2. PET/CT SUV and malignancy diagnosis. Supplementary Table 3. Univariate analysis: association between ENB techniques, lesion characteristics and pneumothorax. Supplementary Table 4. Comparison of studies using ENB as stand-alone diagnostic technique. Supplementary Figure 1. Diagnostic yield of the different ENB sampling techniques.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Flandes, J., Martinez-Muñiz, F.B., Cruz-Rueda, J.J. et al. The effect of combining different sampling tools on the performance of electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy for the evaluation of peripheral lung lesions and factors associated with its diagnostic yield. BMC Pulm Med 23, 432 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02711-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02711-1