Purpose: We aim to determine whether preoperative percutaneous needle aspiration or biopsy (PCNA/Bx) increases recurrence risk and reduces survival in stage I lung cancer patients, using a nationwide lung cancer registry. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively included 3,452 patients diagnosed with stage I lung cancer who underwent curative surgery between 2014 and 2019, as recorded in the Korean Association of Lung Cancer Registry. To balance the characteristics of patients with and without PCNA/Bx, we applied inverse probability of treatment weighting. We used cumulative incidence plots and a weighted subdistribution hazard model to analyze time to recurrence. Recurrence-free survival and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and weighted Cox proportional hazard ratio models. Results: In patients with adenocarcinoma, the use of PCNA/Bx was associated with a 1.9-fold increase (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 2.4) in the risk of recurrence and a 1.7-fold decrease (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.2) in recurrence-free survival. Subgroup analysis based on pathologic pleural invasion revealed that the risk of recurrence increased when PCNA/Bx was performed, with 2.1-fold (95% CI, 1.5 to 2.8) in patients without pleural invasion and 1.6-fold (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.4) in those with pleural invasion. No association was found between the use of PCNA/Bx and overall survival. Conclusion Preoperative PCNA/Bx was associated with increased recurrence risks in stage I adenocarcinoma, regardless of pathologic pleural invasion status. In early lung cancer cases where adenocarcinoma is strongly suspected and curative surgery is feasible, the use of transthoracic biopsy should be approached with caution.

Purpose: We aim to determine whether preoperative percutaneous needle aspiration or biopsy (PCNA/Bx) increases recurrence risk and reduces survival in stage I lung cancer patients, using a nationwide lung cancer registry. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively included 3,452 patients diagnosed with stage I lung cancer who underwent curative surgery between 2014 and 2019, as recorded in the Korean Association of Lung Cancer Registry. To balance the characteristics of patients with and without PCNA/Bx, we applied inverse probability of treatment weighting. We used cumulative incidence plots and a weighted subdistribution hazard model to analyze time to recurrence. Recurrence-free survival and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and weighted Cox proportional hazard ratio models. Results: In patients with adenocarcinoma, the use of PCNA/Bx was associated with a 1.9-fold increase (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 2.4) in the risk of recurrence and a 1.7-fold decrease (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.2) in recurrence-free survival. Subgroup analysis based on pathologic pleural invasion revealed that the risk of recurrence increased when PCNA/Bx was performed, with 2.1-fold (95% CI, 1.5 to 2.8) in patients without pleural invasion and 1.6-fold (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.4) in those with pleural invasion. No association was found between the use of PCNA/Bx and overall survival. Conclusion Preoperative PCNA/Bx was associated with increased recurrence risks in stage I adenocarcinoma, regardless of pathologic pleural invasion status. In early lung cancer cases where adenocarcinoma is strongly suspected and curative surgery is feasible, the use of transthoracic biopsy should be approached with caution.

Purpose: We aim to determine whether preoperative percutaneous needle aspiration or biopsy (PCNA/Bx) increases recurrence risk and reduces survival in stage I lung cancer patients, using a nationwide lung cancer registry. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively included 3,452 patients diagnosed with stage I lung cancer who underwent curative surgery between 2014 and 2019, as recorded in the Korean Association of Lung Cancer Registry. To balance the characteristics of patients with and without PCNA/Bx, we applied inverse probability of treatment weighting. We used cumulative incidence plots and a weighted subdistribution hazard model to analyze time to recurrence. Recurrence-free survival and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and weighted Cox proportional hazard ratio models. Results: In patients with adenocarcinoma, the use of PCNA/Bx was associated with a 1.9-fold increase (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 2.4) in the risk of recurrence and a 1.7-fold decrease (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.2) in recurrence-free survival. Subgroup analysis based on pathologic pleural invasion revealed that the risk of recurrence increased when PCNA/Bx was performed, with 2.1-fold (95% CI, 1.5 to 2.8) in patients without pleural invasion and 1.6-fold (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.4) in those with pleural invasion. No association was found between the use of PCNA/Bx and overall survival. Conclusion Preoperative PCNA/Bx was associated with increased recurrence risks in stage I adenocarcinoma, regardless of pathologic pleural invasion status. In early lung cancer cases where adenocarcinoma is strongly suspected and curative surgery is feasible, the use of transthoracic biopsy should be approached with caution.

Background: To systematically review studies on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and lung cancer incidence in chronic airway disease patients. Methods: We conducted electronic bibliographic searches on OVID-MEDLINE, EM- BASE, and the Cochrane Database before May 2020 to identify relevant studies. Detailed data on the study population, exposure, and outcome domains were reviewed. Results: Of 4,058 screened publications, 13 eligible studies in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma evaluated lung cancer incidence after ICS exposure. Pooled hazard ratio and odds ratio for developing lung cancer in ICS exposure were 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 1.02; I2=95.7%) from 10 studies and 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.50 to 2.07; I2=94.7%) from three studies. Meta-regression failed to explain the substantial heterogeneity of pooled estimates. COPD and asthma were variously defined without spirometry in 11 studies. Regarding exposure assessment, three and 10 studies regarded ICS exposure as a time-dependent and fixed variable, respectively. Some studies assessed ICS use for the entire study period, whereas others assessed ICS use for 6 months to 2 years within or before study entry. Smoking was adjusted in four studies, and only four studies introduced 1 to 2 latency years in their main or subgroup analysis. Conclusion Studies published to date on ICS and lung cancer incidence had heterogeneous study populations, exposures, and outcome assessments, limiting the generation of a pooled conclusion. The beneficial effect of ICS on lung cancer incidence has not yet been established, and understanding the heterogeneities will help future researchers to establish robust evidence on ICS and lung cancer incidence.

Objective: To compare the incidence of aspiration pneumonia, nausea, and vomiting after intravascular administration of nonionic iodinated contrast media (ICM) between patients who fasted before contrast injection and those who did not. Materials and Methods: Ovid-MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from their inception dates until September 2022 to identify original articles that met the following criteria: 1) randomized controlled trials or observational studies, 2) separate reports of the incidence of aspiration pneumonia, nausea, and vomiting after intravascular injection of non-ionic ICM, and 3) inclusion of patients undergoing radiological examinations without fasting. A bivariate beta-binomial model was used to compare the risk difference in adverse events between fasting and non-fasting groups. The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity across the studies. Results: Ten studies, encompassing 308013 patients (non-fasting, 158442), were included in this meta-analysis. No cases of aspiration pneumonia were reported. The pooled incidence of nausea was 4.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4%, 7.8%) in the fasting group and 4.6% (95% CI: 1.1%, 8.1%) in the non-fasting group. The pooled incidence of vomiting was 2.1% (95% CI: 0.0%, 4.2%) in the fasting group and 2.5% (95% CI: 0.7%, 4.2%) in the non-fasting group. The risk difference (incidence in the non-fasting group–incidence in the fasting group) in the incidence of nausea and vomiting was 0.0% (95% CI: -4.7%, 4.7%) and 0.4% (95% CI: -2.3%, 3.1%), respectively. Heterogeneity between the studies was low (I2 = 0%–13.5%). Conclusion Lack of fasting before intravascular administration of non-ionic ICM for radiological examinations did not increase the risk of emetic complications significantly. This finding suggests that hospitals can relax fasting policies without compromising patient safety.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The association between nutritional status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is not fully understood. This study was conducted to understand the role of nutritional status on HRQoL among people with and without T2DM. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Structured survey and direct measurement of anthropometric data were conducted among people with and without T2DM. Nutritional status was measured with Mini Nutritional Assessment tool and HRQoL was measured with a 36-item Short Form Healthy Survey. Data collection was conducted in Chuncheon, South Korea with 756 participants who are older than 40 yrs of age. RESULTS: This study found that overall HRQoL were significantly lower in people with T2DM than people without T2DM after controlling for key covariates. When stratified by nutritional status, a greater degree of negative impact of T2DM on overall physical HRQoL was observed among well-nourished or at risk of malnutrition, whereas significant and more evident negative impact of diabetes on overall psychological HRQoL was observed only among malnourished. CONCLUSIONS The study results suggest the role of nutritional status among people with T2DM on overall, especially psychological aspects of HRQoL. Future longitudinal or intervention studies are warranted to test the impact of nutritional status on HRQoL among people with T2DM.

Purpose: Although chest CT has been discussed as a first-line test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), little research has explored the implications of CT exposure in the population. To review chest CT protocols and radiation doses in COVID-19 publications and explore the number needed to diagnose (NND) and the number needed to predict (NNP) if CT is used as a first-line test. Materials and Methods: We searched nine highly cited radiology journals to identify studies discussing the CT-based diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Study-level information on the CT protocol and radiation dose was collected, and the doses were compared with each national diagnostic reference level (DRL). The NND and NNP, which depends on the test positive rate (TPR), were calculated, given a CT sensitivity of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91%–96%) and specificity of 37% (95% CI: 26%–50%), and applied to the early outbreak in Wuhan, New York, and Italy. Results: From 86 studies, the CT protocol and radiation dose were reported in 81 (94.2%) and 17 studies (19.8%), respectively. Low-dose chest CT was used more than twice as often as standarddose chest CT (39.5% vs.18.6%), while the remaining studies (44.2%) did not provide relevant information. The radiation doses were lower than the national DRLs in 15 of the 17 studies (88.2%) that reported doses. The NND was 3.2 scans (95% CI: 2.2–6.0). The NNPs at TPRs of 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5% were 2.2, 3.6, 8.0, 15.5 scans, respectively. In Wuhan, 35418 (TPR, 58%; 95% CI: 27710–56755) to 44840 (TPR, 38%; 95% CI: 35161–68164) individuals were estimated to have undergone CT examinations to diagnose 17365 patients. During the early surge in New York and Italy, daily NNDs changed up to 5.4 and 10.9 times, respectively, within 10 weeks. Conclusion Low-dose CT protocols were described in less than half of COVID-19 publications, and radiation doses were frequently lacking. The number of populations involved in a first-line diagnostic CT test could vary dynamically according to daily TPR; therefore, caution is required in future planning.

Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the tissue adequacy and complication rates of percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB) for molecular analysis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: We performed a literature search of the OVID-MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify original studies on the tissue adequacy and complication rates of PTNB for molecular analysis in patients with NSCLC published between January 2005 and January 2020. Inverse variance and random-effects models were used to evaluate and acquire meta-analytic estimates of the outcomes. To explore heterogeneity across the studies, univariable and multivariable metaregression analyses were performed. Results: A total of 21 studies with 2232 biopsies (initial biopsy, 8 studies; rebiopsy after therapy, 13 studies) were included.The pooled rates of tissue adequacy and complications were 89.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.6%–92.6%; I2 = 0.81) and 17.3% (95% CI: 12.1%–23.1%; I2 = 0.89), respectively. These rates were 93.5% and 22.2% for the initial biopsies and 86.2% and 16.8% for the rebiopsies, respectively. Severe complications, including pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement and massive hemoptysis, occurred in 0.7% of the cases (95% CI: 0%–2.2%; I2 = 0.67). Multivariable meta-regression analysis showed that the tissue adequacy rate was not significantly lower in studies on rebiopsies (p = 0.058). The complication rate was significantly higher in studies that preferentially included older adults (p = 0.001). Conclusion PTNB demonstrated an average tissue adequacy rate of 89.3% for molecular analysis in patients with NSCLC, with a complication rate of 17.3%. PTNB is a generally safe and effective diagnostic procedure for obtaining tissue samples for molecular analysis in NSCLC. Rebiopsy may be performed actively with an acceptable risk of complications if clinically required.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the complications of percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy using CT-based imaging modalities for needle guidance in comparison with fluoroscopy in a large retrospective cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by multiple Institutional Review Boards and the requirement for informed consent was waived. We retrospectively included 10568 biopsies from eight referral hospitals from 2010 through 2014. In univariate and multivariate logistic analyses, 3 CT-based guidance modalities (CT, CT fluoroscopy, and cone-beam CT) were compared with fluoroscopy in terms of the risk of pneumothorax, pneumothorax requiring chest tube insertion, and hemoptysis, with adjustment for other risk factors. RESULTS: Pneumothorax occurred in 2298 of the 10568 biopsies (21.7%). Tube insertion was required after 316 biopsies (3.0%), and hemoptysis occurred in 550 cases (5.2%). In the multivariate analysis, pneumothorax was more frequently detected with CT {odds ratio (OR), 2.752 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.325–3.258), p < 0.001}, CT fluoroscopy (OR, 1.440 [95% CI, 1.176–1.762], p < 0.001), and cone-beam CT (OR, 2.906 [95% CI, 2.235–3.779], p < 0.001), but no significant relationship was found for pneumothorax requiring chest tube insertion (p = 0.497, p = 0.222, and p = 0.216, respectively). The incidence of hemoptysis was significantly lower under CT (OR, 0.348 [95% CI, 0.247–0.491], p < 0.001), CT fluoroscopy (OR, 0.594 [95% CI, 0.419–0.843], p = 0.004), and cone-beam CT (OR, 0.479 [95% CI, 0.317–0.724], p < 0.001) guidance. CONCLUSION: Hemoptysis occurred less frequently with CT-based guidance modalities in comparison with fluoroscopy. Although pneumothorax requiring chest tube insertion showed a similar incidence, pneumothorax was more frequently detected using CT-based guidance modalities.
Biopsy ; Biopsy, Needle ; Chest Tubes ; Cohort Studies ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ; Ethics Committees, Research ; Fluoroscopy ; Hemoptysis ; Image-Guided Biopsy ; Incidence ; Informed Consent ; Lung Neoplasms ; Multivariate Analysis ; Needles ; Pneumothorax ; Referral and Consultation ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors

On page 323, the grant number was incorrectly numbered as HI15C1234. The correct number is HI15C3390.