ArticleJournal of the American Society of Cytopathology
Does ROSE matter? Evaluation of final diagnostic, PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, and molecular testing yields of CT-guided lung biopsies performed before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with urgent implementation of safety protocols limiting the number of on-site personnel, essentially terminated the use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) for computed tomography (CT)--guided lung biopsies at our institution. The diminished use of ROSE during the pandemic prompted us to reevaluate the potential value of ROSE for CT-guided lung biopsies. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively identified all CT-guided lung biopsies from 2017 to 2022. Associations between the use of ROSE, adequate diagnostic and ancillary testing (programmed death-ligand 1 immunohistochemistry and next-generation sequencing) outcomes, and other factors such as the number of passes performed and lesion size, were evaluated.
resultsNine hundred twelve CT-guided lung biopsies were performed from 2017 to 2022; 171 (19%) utilized ROSE. The use of ROSE had been steadily decreasing prior to the pandemic but was essentially eliminated with the onset of the pandemic. By univariable analysis, the employment of ROSE was more likely to be associated with an adequate final diagnosis (odds ratio = 2.14, 95% confidence interval: [1.24-3.70], P = 0.006) and successful molecular testing (odds ratio = 2.16, 95% confidence interval: [1.11-4.21], P = 0.024). However, those associations were not present in multivariable analyses that incorporated the number of passes performed or lesion size. There were no differences in diagnostic adequacy or ancillary testing yields when comparing the periods 2017-2019 and 2020-2022, despite declining use of ROSE.
conclusionsIf ROSE is not requested for CT-guided lung biopsies, proceduralists should err on the side of performing more, rather than fewer, passes, particularly for smaller lesions.
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.