Skip to main content
Download PDF

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 Pulmonary Medicine volume 23, Article number: 432 (2023) Cite this article

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.

Peer Review reports

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.

Table 1 Demographics, Lesions and Procedure Characteristics
Full size table

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).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Diagnostic algorithm based on 18-month follow-up data. Notes: ENB Electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy, CT Computer tomography, EBUS Endobronchial ultrasound, EBUS-TBNA Linear EBUS

Full size image

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%.

Table 2 Bivariate analysis of Diagnostic yield ENB based on demographic variables, lesion characteristic and etiology
Full size table

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).

Table 3 Multivariate analysis factors affecting diagnostic yield
Full size table
Table 4 ENB yield prediction equation
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

ROC curve of the predictive model for diagnostic success during ENB including the area under ROC curve

Full size image

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).

Table 5 Diagnostic yield of techniques and tools used during ENB
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

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)

Full size image

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

  1. Lillington GA. Management of solitary pulmonary nodules. Dis Mon. 1991;37:271–318.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang Memoli JS, Nietert PJ, Silvestri GA. Meta-analysis of guided bronchoscopy for the evaluation of the pulmonary nodule. Chest. 2012;142:385–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Eberhardt R, Anantham D, Herth F, Feller-Kopman D, Ernst A. Electromagnetic navigation diagnostic bronchoscopy in peripheral lung lesions. Chest. 2007;131:1800–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 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).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Saenghirunvattana S, Bechara R, Saenghirunvattana C, Gonzales MC, Sutthisri K, Siangpro C. Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy. BKK Med J. 2017;13:37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 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,

  48. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Naidich DP, Sussman R, Kutcher WL, Aranda CP, Garay SM, Ettenger NA. Solitary pulmonary nodules. CT-bronchoscopic correlation. Chest. 1988;93:595–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Flandes Aldeyturriaga J, Ortega Gonzalez A. Manual de Procedimientos SEPAR: Necesidades y organizacion de una unidad de endoscopia respiratoria. Barcelona: SEPAR; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Klemm F, Joyce JA. Microenvironmental regulation of therapeutic response in cancer. Trends Cell Biol. 2015;25:198–213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Psaila B, Lyden D. The metastatic niche: adapting the foreign soil. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:285–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Tsuboi E, Ikeda S, Tajima M, Shimosato Y, Ishikawa S. Transbronchial biopsy smear for diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary carcinomas. Cancer. 1967;20:687–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Chief of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology Unit, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz, CIBERES, Avenida Reyes Catolicos No 2, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Flandes

  2. Department of Pulmonology, Hospital de La Línea de La Concepción, Cádiz, Spain

    Francisco B. Martinez-Muñiz

  3. Department of Pulmonology, Hospital Universitario Torrecárdenas, Almería, Spain

    Juan José Cruz-Rueda

  4. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine, Knoxville, TN, USA

    Francisco J. Soto

  5. Division of Thoracic Surgery and Interventional Pulmonology, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Adnan Majid

  6. Master’s Candidate in Epidemiology, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia

    Eduardo Tuta-Quintero

  7. Professor of Medicine at Facultad de Medicina, Autonorte de Bogota. Chía, Universidad de La Sabana. Address: Universidad de La Sabana, Km 7, 250001, Cundinamarca, Colombia

    Luis F. Giraldo-Cadavid

  8. Chief of the Interventional Pulmonology Service at Fundacion Neumologica Colombiana, Cra. 13B#161 - 85, 110131, Bogotá, Colombia

    Luis F. Giraldo-Cadavid

Authors
  1. Javier Flandes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francisco B. Martinez-Muñiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan José Cruz-Rueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francisco J. Soto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Adnan Majid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eduardo Tuta-Quintero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Luis F. Giraldo-Cadavid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Correspondence to Luis F. Giraldo-Cadavid.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02711-1

Keywords

BMC Pulmonary Medicine

ISSN: 1471-2466

Contact us