Observational studyMedicine2020
Outcomes of patients with a non-diagnostic initial bronchoscopy for suspected thoracic malignancy.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of the changes in clinical features and characteristics of lung cancer under bronchoscopy.American journal of clinical and experimental immunology · 2026Article
- Implications of Preoperative Transbronchial Lung Biopsy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Less than 3-cm.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung cancer is 1 of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths and bronchoscopy is an essential tool for the diagnosis. The diagnostic yield varies based on the characteristics of the lesion and bronchoscopic techniques employed. There is limited data regarding outcomes of patients suspected of thoracic malignancies with a non-diagnostic initial bronchoscopy. The goal of the study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients with a non-diagnostic bronchoscopy for suspected thoracic malignancies and to evaluate variables predictive of a diagnostic bronchoscopy.Retrospective analysis of adult patients at BronxCare Hospital Center who underwent bronchoscopy for suspected thoracic malignancy. The study period was January 2012 to February 2019. Exclusion criteria included patients who underwent only inspection bronchoscopy or bronchoalveolar lavage as the diagnostic yield for malignancy with these techniques is low. All other bronchoscopic procedures were included that is, endobronchial biopsies, transbronchial biopsies, and endobronchial ultrasound guided-transbronchial needle aspiration. Bronchoscopy was considered diagnostic when a specific histopathological diagnosis was established.311 patients underwent bronchoscopy to rule out malignancy. A diagnosis was obtained in 153 (49.2%) patients, 81 (52.9%) had primary lung cancer and 14 (9.15%) other malignancies. 158 (50.8%) patients had initial non-diagnostic bronchoscopy; 86 (54.43%) were lost to follow up. Of the remaining 72 (45.57%) patients, radiological resolution or stability was observed in 51 (70.8%) patients. Primary lung cancer was found in 13 (18.05%) patients and other malignancies in 5 (6.94%). Predictive of a diagnostic bronchoscopy was the performance of endobronchial biopsies and endobronchial ultrasound guided-transbronchial needle aspiration.This study highlights some of the barriers to the timely diagnosis of thoracic malignancies. Following patients with a non-diagnostic procedure as well as all those patients with diagnosed malignancies it of the utmost importance. In patients available for follow up, close to 25% of additional cases with treatable malignancy could be identified and patients diagnosed with cancer could receive timely treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.