Dataset Information

Cone-beam CT and Augmented Fluoroscopy-guided Navigation Bronchoscopy: Radiation Exposure and Diagnostic Accuracy Learning Curves.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The endobronchial diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions suspected of lung cancer remains a challenge from a navigation as well as an adequate tissue sampling perspective. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) guidance is a relatively new technology and allows for 3-dimensional imaging confirmation as well as navigation and biopsy guidance, but, also involves radiation. This study investigates how radiation exposure and diagnostic accuracy in the CBCT-guided navigation bronchoscopy evolves with increasing experience, and, with a specific tailoring of CBCT and fluoroscopic imaging protocols towards the procedure.

Patients and methods

In this observational clinical trial, all 238 consecutive patients undergoing a CBCT-guided navigation bronchoscopy from the start of our CBCT-guided navigation bronchoscopy program (December 2017) until June 2020 were included. Procedural dose characteristics and diagnostic accuracy are reported as a function of time.

Results

Procedural radiation exposure as measured by the dose area product initially was 47.5 Gy·cm2 (effective dose: 14.3 mSv) and gradually reduced to 25.4 Gy·cm2 (5.8 mSv). The reduction in fluoroscopic dose area product was highest, from 19.0 Gy·cm2 (5.2 mSv) to 2.2 Gy·cm2 (0.37 mSv, 88% reduction), despite a significant increase of fluoroscopy time. The diagnostic accuracy of navigation bronchoscopy increased from 72% to 90%.

Conclusion

A significant learning effect can be seen in the radiation safety and diagnostic accuracy of a CBCT-guided and augmented fluoroscopy-guided navigation bronchoscopy. With increasing experience and tailoring of imaging protocols to the procedure, the procedural accuracy improved, while the effective dose for patients and staff was reduced.

SUBMITTER: Verhoeven RLJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8460082 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare cone-beam computed tomography (CT) navigation vs conventional CT image guidance during biopsies.Materials and methodsPatients scheduled for image-guided biopsies were prospectively and randomly assigned to conventional CT guidance vs cone-beam CT navigation. Radiation dose, accuracy of final needle position, rate of histopathologic diagnosis, and number of needle repositions to reach the target (defined as pullback to adjust position) were compared.ResultsA total of 58 patients (mean age, 57 y; 62.1% men) were randomized: 29 patients underwent 33 biopsies with CT guidance and 29 patients with 33 lesions underwent biopsy with cone-beam CT navigation. The average body mass index (BMI) was similar between groups, at 28.8 kg/m(2) ± 6.55 (P = .18). There was no difference between groups in terms of patient and lesion characteristics (eg, size, depth). The average lesion size was 29.1 ± 12.7mm for CT group vs 32.1mm ±16.8mm for cone-beam CT group (P < 0.59). Location of lesions was equally divided between the 2 groups, 20 lung lesions, 18 renal lesions and 20 other abdominal lesions. Mean number of needle repositions in the cone-beam CT group was 0.3 ± 0.5, compared with 1.9 ± 2.3 with conventional CT (P < .001). The average skin entry dose was 29% lower with cone-beam CT than with conventional CT (P < .04 accounting for BMI). The average estimated effective dose for the planning scan from phantom data was 49% lower with cone-beam CT vs conventional CT (P = .018). Accuracy, defined as the difference between planned and final needle positions, was 4.9 mm ± 4.1 for the cone-beam CT group, compared with 12.2 mm ± 8.1 for conventional CT (P < .001). Histopathologic diagnosis rates were similar between groups, at 90.9% for conventional CT and 93.9% for cone-beam CT (P = .67).ConclusionsCone-beam CT navigation for biopsies improved targeting accuracy with fewer needle repositions, lower skin entry dose, and lower effective dose for planning scan, and a comparable histopathologic diagnosis rate.