ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer (LC) screening improves LC survival; the best screening method in terms of improving survival is low-dose CT (LDCT), outpacing chest X-ray and sputum cytology. METHODS: A consensus of experts in Argentina was carried out to review the literature and generate recommendations for LC screening programmes. A mixed-method study was used with three phases: (1) review of the literature; (2) modified Delphi consensus panel; and (3) development of the recommendations. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework was used to generate 13 evaluation criteria. Nineteen experts participated in four voting rounds. Consensus among participants was defined using the RAND/UCLA method. RESULTS: A total of 16 recommendations scored ≥7 points with no disagreement on any criteria. Screening for LC should be performed with LDCT annually in the population at high-risk, aged between 55 and 74 years, regardless of sex, without comorbidities with a risk of death higher than the risk of death from LC, smoking ≥30 pack-years or former smokers who quit smoking within 15 years. Screening will be considered positive when finding a solid nodule ≥6 mm in diameter (or ≥113 mm3) on baseline LDCT and 4 mm in diameter if a new nodule is identified on annual screening. A smoking cessation programme should be offered, and cardiovascular risk assessment should be performed. Institutions should have a multidisciplinary committee, have protocols for the management of symptomatic patients not included in the programme and distribute educational material. CONCLUSION: The recommendations provide a basis for minimum requirements from which local institutions can develop their own protocols adapted to their needs and resources.
Subject(s)
Lung Neoplasms , Humans , Middle Aged , Aged , Lung Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Consensus , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Delphi Technique , Mass Screening/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the benefits and risks of bronchoscopy remain uncertain. This study was designed to characterize bronchoscopy-related practice patterns, diagnostic yields, and adverse events involving patients with known or suspected COVID-19. METHODS: An online survey tool retrospectively queried bronchoscopists about their experiences with patients with known or suspected COVID-19 between March 20 and August 20, 2020. Collected data comprised the Global Pandemic SARS-CoV-2 Bronchoscopy Database (GPS-BD). All bronchoscopists and patients were anonymous with no direct investigator-to-respondent contact. RESULTS: Bronchoscopy procedures involving 289 patients from 26 countries were analyzed. One-half of patients had known COVID-19. Most (82%) had at least 1 pre-existing comorbidity, 80% had at least 1 organ failure, 51% were critically ill, and 37% were intubated at the time of the procedure. Bronchoscopy was performed with diagnostic intent in 166 (57%) patients, yielding a diagnosis in 86 (52%). and management changes in 80 (48%). Bronchoscopy was performed with therapeutic intent in 71 (25%) patients, mostly for secretion clearance (87%). Complications attributed to bronchoscopy or significant clinical decline within 12 hours of the procedure occurred in 24 (8%) cases, with 1 death. CONCLUSION: Results from this international database provide a widely generalizable characterization of the benefits and risks of bronchoscopy in patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Bronchoscopy in this setting has reasonable clinical benefit, with diagnosis and/or management change resulting from about half of the diagnostic cases. However, it is not without risk, especially in patients with limited physiological reserve.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Bronchoscopy/methods , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
He leído con especial interés el artículo de Colt y Murgu El rol del neumonólogo en el estudio de los marcadores moleculares en el cáncer de pulmón no pequeñas células (RAMR 2014; 2: 115-124). Un enfoque claro, práctico y preciso. Una vez más, es momento de hacer hincapié en el rol del neumonólogoen la toma de decisiones en pacientes con cáncer de pulmón. Tradicionalmente, se dejaba en manos del oncólogo la decisión terapéutica; sin embargo, el enfoque multidisciplinario es, desde hace años, el estándar de tratamiento
