Diagnostic Validity of Computed Tomography Thorax in Comparison with Fibreoptic Bronchoscopy for Endobronchial LesionsCorrespondence Address :
No. 110, 14th Main, 1st Block, HMT Layout, Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore-560097, Karnataka, India.
Introduction: Fibreoptic Bronchoscopy (FOB) is the gold standard for diagnosis of endobronchial diseases, an invasive procedure not without risks. Computed Tomography (CT) illustration of thoracic anatomy provides guidance in sampling procedure for diagnosis of endobronchial disease through FOB. Yet, in real life scenario, we find discrepancy between findings of CT and bronchoscopy which necessitates the patients to undergo second invasive procedure for a definitive diagnosis.
Aim: To assess the diagnostic validity of CT imaging in diagnosing endobronchial diseases by comparing with FOB findings and to correlate FOB findings with pathological results.
Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional retrospective analysis over six years in a tertiary care centre from January 2012 to December 2018. The findings on CT and FOB were classified as normal, abnormal mucosa, mass and extrinsic compression. FOB samples were sent for pathological examination.
Results: A total of 426 patients were included in the study. The sensitivity of CT for presence of normal bronchus, abnormal mucosa, mass and extrinsic compression was 93.03%, 27.50%, 89.00% and 59.52% and specificity was 91.76%, 98.45%, 89.88% and 94.79%, respectively. Pathological diagnosis was obtained in 135 (97.12%) out of 139 cases. Squamous cell carcinoma was the most common 62 (41.01%) histological diagnosis.
Conclusion: Computed Tomography (CT) thorax imaging has good sensitivity and specificity to detect endobronchial mass but has poor sensitivity for detection of extrinsic compression and mucosal abnormalities in bronchi. Squamous cell carcinoma was the most common pathological diagnosis.
Extrinsic compression, Mass, Mucosal abnormalities, Squamous cell carcinoma
Date of Submission: Sep 29, 2020
Date of Peer Review: Oct 31, 2020
Date of Acceptance: Jan 11, 2021
Date of Publishing: Mar 01, 2021
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? NA
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Sep 30, 2020
• Manual Googling: Oct 31, 2020
• iThenticate Software: Feb 17, 2021 (8%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)