Diagnostic Yield vs Diagnostic Accuracy for Peripheral Lung Biopsy Evaluation: Evidence Supporting a Future Pragmatic End Point

Kaele M Leonard; See-Wei Low; Cristina Salmon Echanique; Briana A Swanner; Joyce Johnson; Greta Dahlberg; Rafael Paez; Ankush P Ratwani; Samira Shojaee; Otis B Rickman; Fabien Maldonado; Robert J Lentz

doi:10.1016/j.chest.2023.12.024

Diagnostic Yield vs Diagnostic Accuracy for Peripheral Lung Biopsy Evaluation: Evidence Supporting a Future Pragmatic End Point

Chest. 2023 Dec 22:S0012-3692(23)05954-8. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.12.024. Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
² Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH.
³ Department of Pathology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
⁴ Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. Electronic address: robert.j.lentz@vumc.org.

PMID: 38142773
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.12.024

Abstract

Background: Diagnostic yield and accuracy endpoints have been used inconsistently in the evaluation of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy devices and techniques, limiting between-study comparisons. In addition, diagnostic accuracy can be adjudicated only after prolonged clinical follow-up, which delays reporting on the performance of novel devices.

Research question: Will a conservative diagnostic yield definition result in few false-negative initial results to closely approximate diagnostic accuracy and represent a useful outcome for future studies of diagnostic utility?

Methods: Commonly used definitions of diagnostic yield were applied to a prospective data set of consecutive peripheral pulmonary lesions sampled by navigational bronchoscopy from 2017 to 2019. All consider malignancy to be diagnostic but differ in their classification of nonmalignant biopsy findings, which were subcategorized as specific benign, nonspecific benign, or normal lung. Diagnostic yield calculations were also compared with diagnostic accuracy, defined as the proportion of biopsy specimens deemed diagnostic by each definition that were confirmed accurate through 2 years of follow-up.

Results: A total of 450 biopsy specimens of lesions were analyzed. The prevalence of malignancy was 60.9% (274 of 450). On initial bronchoscopy pathology, there were 227 malignant diagnoses (50.4%), with a single false positive (0.4%). Among 104 biopsy specimens with specific benign findings, only two were false negative for malignancy (1.9%). There were 119 nonspecific benign biopsy specimens, with 46 false negatives for malignancy (38.7%). The discrepancy between diagnostic yield and accuracy was 0.7% for the conservative definition, which only considered malignant or specific benign findings as diagnostic.

Interpretation: A conservative diagnostic yield definition excluding nonspecific benign diagnoses closely approximated diagnostic accuracy through 2 years' follow-up, with a less than 1% discrepancy. Using this conservative yield definition may allow for dissemination of reliable diagnostic utility data without protracted delays needed for follow-up data in this era of rapid technological change in advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy.

Keywords: bronchoscopy; peripheral pulmonary lesion; pulmonary nodule.