0
Articles |

Performance Characteristics of Different Modalities for Diagnosis of Suspected Lung Cancer*: Summary of Published Evidence

Gilbert Schreiber, MD, FCCP; Douglas C. McCrory, MD, MHS
Author and Funding Information

*From the Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.

Correspondence to: Gilbert Schreiber, MD, FCCP, Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Box 403, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030; e-mail: egschreib@mdanderson.org



Chest. 2003;123(1_suppl):115S-128S. doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.115S
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Study objectives: To determine the test performance characteristics of various modalities for the diagnosis of suspected lung cancer.

Design, setting, and participants: A systematic search of MEDLINE, HealthStar, and Cochrane Library databases to July 2001 and print bibliographies was performed to identify studies comparing the results of sputum cytology, bronchoscopy, transthoracic needle aspirate (TTNA), or biopsy with histologic reference standard diagnoses among at least 50 patients with suspected lung cancer.

Measurement and results: For sputum cytology, the pooled specificity was 0.99 and the pooled sensitivity was 0.66, but sensitivity was higher for central lesions than for peripheral lesions (0.71 vs 0.49, respectively). Studies on bronchoscopic procedures provided data only on diagnostic yield (sensitivity). The diagnosis of endobronchial disease by bronchoscopy in 30 studies showed the highest sensitivity for endobronchial biopsy (0.74), followed by cytobrushing (0.59) and washing (0.48). The sensitivity for all modalities combined was 0.88. Thirty studies reported on peripheral lesions. Cytobrushing demonstrated the highest sensitivity (0.52), followed by transbronchial biopsy (0.46) and BAL/washing (0.43). The overall sensitivity for all modalities was 0.69. Peripheral lesions < 2 cm or > 2 cm in diameter showed sensitivities of 0.33 and 0.62, respectively. Updating a previous meta-analysis with 19 studies revealed a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 for TTNA. A trend toward lower sensitivity was noted for lesions that were < 2 cm in diameter. The accuracy in differentiating between small cell and non-small cell cytology for the various diagnostic modalities was 0.98, with individual studies ranging from 0.94 to 1.0. The average false-positive and false-negative rates were 0.09 and 0.02, respectively.

Conclusions: The sensitivity of bronchoscopy is high for endobronchial disease and poor for peripheral lesions that are < 2 cm in diameter. The sensitivity of TTNA is excellent for malignant disease. The distinction between small cell lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer by cytology appears to be accurate.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543