Abstract
Objective:
This study aimed to describe the frequency and distribution of biopsy procedures for patients diagnosed and treated for primary lung cancer.
Study design:
Retrospective cohort study within an administrative database.
Materials & methods:
This observational study used data from the IBM MarketScan® Databases between 2013 and 2015.
Results:
The total number of lung biopsies performed among eligible subjects was 32,814; an average of 1.7 biopsies per patient. Bronchoscopy and percutaneous approaches accounted for 95% of all procedures. Complication rates by procedure are remarkably similar irrespective of biopsy frequency.
Conclusion:
Nearly half (46%) of patients in this population experienced multiple biopsies prior to diagnosis. Further, biopsy choice or sequence in patients receiving multiple procedures was unpredictable.
Keywords: : biopsy, epidemiology, frequency, lung cancer, methods
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, causing more deaths than colorectal, breast and prostate cancers combined. An estimated 135,720 Americans are expected to die of lung cancer in 2020, accounting for about 22% of all cancer deaths in the United States [1]. The overall 5-year survival rate for patients with lung cancer is poor relative to the other major cancers (lung 19%, colorectal 64%, breast 90%, prostate 98%). As expected, the survival rate varies considerably from 57% for patients with localized disease, to 31% for patients with regional disease and 5% for people with distant disease [2]. Trends in relative survival have improved from 12% in 1977 to 21% in 2015 attributable to changes in smoking patterns and therapeutic improvements. Unlike cancers of the breast, colon or prostate, routine screening for lung cancer has not yet been broadly adopted requiring the engagement of primary care clinicians and support from payers to ensure adoption [3]. As a result, most lung cancer (79%) is diagnosed late with regional or distant extension of the disease, limiting treatment options and reducing survival [2].
A variety of imaging technologies are used to identify a suspicious lesion but the discriminatory capability of the imaging to diagnose lung cancer is poor. As a consequence, tissue biopsy procedures play a critical role in the clinical pathway for the definitive diagnosis of lung cancer. Bronchoscopic techniques, percutaneous biopsy and surgical resection represent competing approaches currently used to acquire the tissue necessary for diagnosis and staging. Guidelines including those of the American College of Chest Physicians and National Comprehensive Cancer Network are available to assess which options are best suited to different clinical scenarios [4,5]. Despite these and other recommendations, little data exist on the frequency, time involved and complication rates of these procedures as performed in the real-world setting. The purpose of this paper is to describe the frequency and distribution of diagnostic procedures and their complications for people with lung cancer using data from a US administrative claims database.
Materials & methods
Database
This observational study utilized data from both the IBM MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases [5]. The MarketScan Databases are constructed from privately insured, paid, medical and prescription drug claims contributed by employers and health plans who have business relationships with IBM Watson Health. The employers are generally self-insured. Collectively, the data are combined from approximately 350 payers, including commercial insurance companies, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans and third-party administrators and include approximately 62 million covered lives. Each contributor’s database is constructed by collecting raw data from the participating payer(s). These raw data are service-level adjudicated paid claims and capitated encounters containing both inpatient and outpatient services. Financial, clinical and demographic variables standardized to common definitions and variables that are specific to employers are also added. Clinical detail is added to the Outpatient Pharmaceutical Claims Table (e.g., therapeutic class, therapeutic group, manufacturer’s average wholesale price and generic product identifier). All study data were accessed with protocols compliant with US patient confidentiality requirements, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 regulations. As the database is fully de-identified and compliant with HIPAA regulations this study was exempted from Institutional Review Board approval [6].
Study population
The study included patients ≥18 years of age, with a principal diagnosis of lung cancer recorded on claims between the observation periods of 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2015. Patients were required to have continuous health plan enrollment 6 months prior to and 6 months following their diagnosis to ensure that biopsies, diagnosis and treatment represented a single episode of care.
Variable definitions
The diagnosis of lung cancer was based on the use of identified codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9-CM 162.x) as well as the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10 C33, C34.xx) as both systems were used during the study observation period. Procedures for biopsy were recognized using the Current Procedural Terminology codes, ICD-9 CM and ICD-10 CM procedure codes and stratified into three categories: percutaneous, bronchoscopic and surgical biopsy. Complications were restricted to iatrogenic pneumothorax with and without a chest tube, air leak and hemorrhage, occurring within specific time periods around the biopsy date (i.e., day 0–1, within 5 days). While other complications may have been recorded in the database, we opted to focus on complications commonly reported in the literature. In addition, we used very specific codes to ensure that the complication reported was the result of the procedure. Treatment was defined as surgery, ablation, radiation therapy or chemotherapy, using the National Drug Code for therapeutic agents used in the treatment of lung cancer in relation to a procedure (see Supplementary Material 1 for list of codes). Only biopsy procedures that occurred prior to the first course of treatment were included in the analysis and represent the final analytical sample (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. . Selection criteria and final analytical sample.
Results
Population characteristics
A total of 136,760 patients were identified as having a primary diagnosis of lung cancer between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015. Of these, a total of 18,684 met all inclusion criteria (Figure 1). A majority of patients (69%) were ineligible because they did not have continuous health plan coverage for 6 months before and after diagnosis. Of those with continuous enrollment, 12% had information indicating that the lung cancer treatment occurred prior to diagnosis and 40% lacked an identifiable biopsy code within 6 months of the first diagnosis. The eligible population with biopsies identified by codes (n = 20,263) included a small proportion (7.8%) of nonbiopsy specific procedures (e.g., computed tomography [CT] guidance for needle placement) and biopsies after treatment. All individuals that fell into one of the categories mentioned about were excluded from the final analytical sample.
The average age of the patient population was 66.4 and there were 9326 men (49.9%) and 9358 women (50.1%). The majority had a preferred provider insurance plan. Forty-six percent of the patient population received two or more biopsies prior to definitive diagnosis and treatment. Patients receiving multiple biopsy procedures were slightly younger, more likely male, with significantly higher comorbidities of congestive heart failure, chronic pulmonary disease and renal disease compared with those receiving a single biopsy (Table 1).
Table 1. . Lung cancer patient characteristics by biopsy frequency (single vs multiple).
| Characteristics | Overall sample (n = 18,684) | Single biopsy (n = 10,588, 45.96%) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age on index date (SD), years | 66.43 (11.58) | 66.74 (11.43) | 66.07 (11.74) | <0.0001 |
| Gender, n (%) | 0.3132 | |||
| – Male | 9326 (49.91) | 5005 (49.57) | 4321 (50.31) | |
| – Female | 9358 (50.09) | 5091 (50.43) | 4267 (49.69) | |
| Age group, n (%) | 0.0001 | |||
| – 18–34 years old | 149 (0.80) | 65 (0.64) | 84 (0.98) | |
| – 35–44 years old | 394 (2.11) | 179 (1.77) | 215 (2.50) | |
| – 45–54 years old | 2041 (10.92) | 1093 (10.83) | 948 (11.04) | |
| – 55–64 years old | 6128 (32.80) | 3276 (32.45) | 2852 (33.21) | |
| – ≥65 years old | 9972 (53.37) | 5483 (54.31) | 4489 (52.27) | |
| Year of index date, n (%) | 0.5062 | |||
| – 2013 | 6311 (33.78) | 3420 (33.87) | 2891 (33.66) | |
| – 2014 | 8721 (46.68) | 4734 (46.89) | 3987 (46.43) | |
| – 2015 | 3652 (19.55) | 1942 (19.24) | 1710 (19.91) | |
| Region, n (%) | 0.1872 | |||
| – Northeast | 4425 (23.68) | 2420 (23.97) | 2005 (23.35) | |
| – North central | 5315 (28.45) | 2918 (28.90) | 2397 (27.91) | |
| – South | 6435 (34.44) | 3434 (34.01) | 3001 (34.94) | |
| – West | 2258 (12.09) | 1184 (11.73) | 1074 (12.51) | |
| – Unknown | 251 (1.34) | 140 (1.39) | 111 (1.29) | |
| Type of insurance, n (%) | 0.3509 | |||
| – EPO | 202 (1.10) | 111 (1.12) | 91 (1.08) | |
| – HMO | 1668 (9.09) | 941 (9.49) | 727 (8.61) | |
| – POS | 1119 (6.10) | 599 (6.04) | 520 (6.16) | |
| – PPO | 9716 (52.94) | 5225 (52.72) | 4491 (53.20) | |
| – Others | 5647 (30.77) | 3035 (30.62) | 2612 (30.94) | |
| Comorbidities, n (%) | ||||
| – Myocardial infarction | 622 (3.33) | 314 (3.11) | 308 (3.59) | 0.0705 |
| – Congestive heart failure | 1772 (9.48) | 854 (8.46) | 918 (10.69) | <0.0001 |
| – Peripheral vascular disease | 2390 (12.79) | 1323 (13.10) | 1067 (12.42) | 0.1655 |
| – Cerebrovascular disease | 1876 (10.04) | 979 (9.70) | 897 (10.44) | 0.0900 |
| – Dementia | 159 (0.85) | 74 (0.73) | 85 (0.99) | 0.0569 |
| – Chronic pulmonary disease | 8787 (47.03) | 4613 (45.69) | 4174 (48.60) | <0.0001 |
| – Connective tissue disease – rheumatic disease | 603 (3.23) | 311 (3.08) | 292 (3.40) | 0.2179 |
| – Peptic ulcer disease | 178 (0.95) | 96 (0.95) | 82 (0.95) | 0.9779 |
| – Mild liver disease | 1335 (7.15) | 719 (7.12) | 616 (7.17) | 0.8924 |
| – Diabetes without complications | 3977 (21.29) | 2096 (20.76) | 1881 (21.90) | 0.0574 |
| – Diabetes with complications | 919 (4.92) | 498 (4.93) | 421 (4.90) | 0.9236 |
| – Paraplegia and hemiplegia | 134 (0.72) | 73 (0.72) | 61 (0.71) | 0.9179 |
| – Renal disease | 1104 (5.91) | 563 (5.58) | 541 (6.30) | 0.0367 |
| – Other cancer | 5206 (27.86) | 2826 (27.99) | 2380 (27.71) | 0.6725 |
| – Moderate or severe liver disease | 62 (0.33) | 23 (0.23) | 39 (0.45) | 0.0073 |
| – Metastatic carcinoma | 4487 (24.02) | 2416 (23.93) | 2071 (24.12) | 0.7683 |
| – AIDS/HIV | 40 (0.21) | 20 (0.20) | 20 (0.23) | 0.6082 |
| Number of comorbidities, n (%) | 0.0110 | |||
| – 0 | 3053 (16.34) | 1689 (16.73) | 1364 (15.88) | |
| – 1–3 | 13,546 (72.50) | 7340 (72.70) | 6206 (72.26) | |
| – ≥4 | 2085 (11.16) | 1067 (10.57) | 1018 (11.85) | |
| Charlson comorbidity score, mean (SD) | 3.41 (3.24) | 3.37 (3.22) | 3.47 (3.26) | 0.0269 |
Bold terms indicate significant difference between patients in single biopsy group and patients in multiple biopsies group for each corresponding characteristic.
EPO: Exclusive provider organization; HMO: Health maintenance organization; POS: Point of service; PPO: Preferred provider organization; SD: Standard deviation.
Biopsy frequency & complication rates
The 18,684 patients received a total of 32,814 biopsies (1.7 biopsies/patient), 40.7% of which were bronchoscopic, 52.7% percutaneous, and 6.6% surgical (Table 2). Fifty-four percent of patients (n = 10,096) received a single biopsy of which 40.8% were bronchoscopic, 52.0% were percutaneous and 7.2% were surgical. For the 46% of patients who received multiple biopsies the distribution of the first biopsy was 40.8% bronchoscopic, 57.1% percutaneous and 2.1% surgical. Subsequent biopsies in the multiple biopsy group tended to repeat the primary procedure (∼ 60%) rather than switch to alternative biopsy techniques. For those receiving multiple biopsies there was a time lag between procedures 1 and 2 of 31 days, between procedures 2 and 3 of 26 days and between procedures 3 and 4 of 32 days adding as much as 90 days to the patient’s journey prior to treatment.
Table 2. . Biopsy frequency by procedure.
| Patients with biopsy (n = 18,684) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biopsy frequency (%) | Bronchoscopy n (%) | Percutaneous n (%) | Surgical n (%) | Total n (%) | Unique patients n (%) | ||
| Overall frequency | 13,367 (40.74) | 17,287 (52.68) | 2160 (6.58) | 32,814 (100.00) | 18,684 (100.00) | ||
| Single biopsy (n = 10,096, 54.04%) | 4123 (40.84) | 5246 (51.96) | 727 (7.20) | 10096 (100.00) | 10096 (100.00) | ||
| Multiple biopsies (n = 8588, 45.96%) | Bronchoscopy | Percutaneous | Surgical | Total | Unique patient n(%) | Interval days from previous biopsy, mean (SD) | Cumulative interval days from first biopsy, mean (SD) |
| First biopsy, n (%) | 3508 (40.85) | 4907 (57.14) | 173 (2.01) | 8588 (100.00) | 8588 (100.00) | – | – |
| Second biopsy, n (%) | 3732 (43.46) | 4105 (47.80) | 751 (8.74) | 8588 (100.00) | 8588 (100.00) | 30.68 (40.09) | 30.68 (40.09) |
| Third biopsy, n (%) | 1280 (40.25) | 1578 (49.62) | 322 (10.13) | 3180 (100.00) | 3180 (37.03) | 31.04 (39.81) | 56.69 (51.46) |
| ≥ Fourth biopsy, n (%) | 724 (30.65) | 1451 (61.43) | 187 (7.92) | 2362 (100.00) | 1227 (14.29) | 22.91 (32.34) | 89.14 (59.27) |
SD: Standard deviation.
Pneumothorax was recorded in 10.2% of percutaneous patients and 1.84% of bronchoscopy patients while pneumothorax requiring a chest tube within 1 day was 0.41% in percutaneous patients and 0.07% in bronchoscopic patients. Hemorrhage was reported in 0.7%, 0.6% and 3.3% of patients undergoing percutaneous, bronchoscopic and surgical biopsies respectively. Air leaks within 5 days were rare occurring in 0.1%, 1.0% and 2.2% of patients undergoing percutaneous, bronchoscopic and surgical biopsies, respectively.
The pattern and frequency of complications for those undergoing multiple biopsy procedures was remarkedly similar to those with only one biopsy. While the incidence of pneumothorax requiring a chest tube, bleeding and air leaks were significantly higher in those patients receiving multiple biopsies following adjustment for age, baseline procedure and Charlson cormorbidity score, the absolute difference was quite small (0.4–1.2%).
Discussion
Factors influencing biopsy approach
The approach to the diagnosis of lung cancer is affected by the location of the disease (peripheral vs central lung, mediastinal vs hilar or pulmonary node involvement or metastatic to outside of the thorax, etc.), the size of the primary lung lesion (<10 mm vs larger), the radiographic stage of the disease (primary site vs suggested nodal involvement vs metastatic site), as well as comorbidities that patients have, any of which can effect clinical decisions, sometimes limiting or increasing the risk of certain procedures. Additionally, the location where the patient is seen as well as availability of specialists who may offer certain technologies and techniques can influence a physician’s choice for type of biopsy. In our study, covering a broad range of practices and payors throughout the United States, lung cancer patients received an average of 1.7 biopsies during the 6 months before their diagnosis with 46.0% of the patient population undergoing 2 or more biopsies. Bronchoscopic and percutaneous biopsies accounted for 93.4% of the procedures while surgery accounted for 6.6%, which is slightly lower than the surgical numbers of 11.4% reported by Vyas in 2010 [7]. Using the same Marketscan database, Shinde et al. similarly analyzed the frequency of biopsy procedures in a lung cancer patient population, selecting their population based on whether they received treatment with erlotinib or crizotinib. They reported an average of 1.6 biopsies per patient with 56, 42 and <1% being bronchoscopic, percutaneous and surgical, respectively [8]. It should be noted that the Shinde study used a lung cancer diagnosis code in either the primary or secondary position, their observation period was 2009–2012 and they required a continuous enrollment period 12 months prior to and 12 months following the index date. Even with these methodologic differences the average biopsy rate, the percentage of female patients and the average age of the patients were similar.
Gildea et al. analyzed data from Optum, an administrative database of medical and pharmacy claims (year 2007–2011) from a large US health insurance company, and reported an average of 1.2 biopsies per patient (n = 1210) with 60.5, 36.7 and 2.8% being bronchoscopic, percutaneous and surgical, respectively [9]. Gildea et al. found the same unmet needs in that most patients experienced long periods of delay (5–6 months) between their first diagnostic test for lung cancer and a definitive diagnosis. Our study suggests that for almost half the lung cancer population multiple biopsies were performed adding as much as 3 months to diagnostic timelines.
Biopsy type & complications
The current diagnostic pathway for patients with suspected lung cancer has high variability. Confidence in the diagnostic yield is directly proportional to more invasive procedures that are associated with higher complication rates. The role of image guided transthoracic needle aspiration is well established, commonly available throughout the community and is almost exclusively used to sample nodules/masses in the peripheral lung parenchyma. In this study, percutaneous biopsy was the most common procedure performed (52.7%) for patients receiving a single or multiple procedures. Pneumothorax remains the most frequently reported complication for transthoracic needle aspiration procedures with rates ranging from 4.2 to 62.2% and 0.2 to 31.1% among those patients with pneumothorax requiring a chest tube [10]. This wide range likely reflects the vast differences in the clinical case series from which these estimates were drawn. Wiener et al. used the 2006 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s State Ambulatory Surgery Databases and State Inpatient Databases for California, Florida, Michigan and New York to identify 15,865 patients who underwent percutaneous needle biopsy of a pulmonary nodule [11]. The complication rates for pneumothorax, pneumothorax with a chest tube and hemorrhage were 15.0, 6.6 and 1.0%, respectively. Maybody et al. conducted a clinical trial determine whether sealing the pleural puncture site with two different materials produced different rates of pneumothorax and chest tube placement [12]. For the two comparison groups, the reported pneumothorax rates were 21 and 29% while the pneumothorax with chest tube placement rates were 9 and 13%. In addition, air leak rates after 2 weeks were 1.4 and 1.5%. In our study percutaneous biopsy complication rates for pneumothorax, pneumothorax with chest tube placement and hemorrhage were 10.2, 0.4 and 0.7%, respectively. Air leak within 5 days was <1% (Table 3).
Table 3. . Complications by procedure for patients with single biopsy and multiple biopsies.
| Biopsy procedure type | Single biopsy | Multiple biopsies | p-value† |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence of complications (n = 10096, 54.04%) | Incidence of complications (n = 8588, 45.96%) | ||
| CT Guided Bx only n (%) | 4892 procedures | 6991 procedures | |
| Within 1 day | |||
| – Pneumothorax | 498 (10.18) | 753 (10.77) | 0.8651 |
| – Pneumothorax requiring chest tube | 20 (0.41) | 18 (0.26) | 0.1917 |
| – Hemorrhage | 35 (0.72) | 58 (0.83) | 0.7811 |
| Within 5 days | |||
| – Air leak | 6 (0.12) | 13 (0.19) | 0.2642 |
| Bronchoscopy | 4123 procedures | 9244 procedures | |
| Within 1 day | |||
| – Pneumothorax | 78 (1.84) | 240 (2.60) | 0.0423 |
| – Pneumothorax requiring chest tube | 3 (0.07) | 10 (0.11) | 0.8765 |
| – Hemorrhage | 24 (0.58) | 179 (1.94) | <0.001 |
| Within 5 days | |||
| – Air leak | 42 (1.02) | 107 (1.16) | 0.0245 |
| Surgical biopsy | 270 procedures | 857 procedures | |
| Within 1 day | |||
| – Hemorrhage | 9 (3.33) | 42 (4.90) | 0.7396 |
| Within 5 days | |||
| – Air leak | 6 (2.22) | 18 (2.10) | 0.8902 |
Adjusted for Age, CCI score and baseline procedure.
Bold terms used in the table indicate significant different complication incidences between patients with single biopsy and patients with multiple biopsies, after controlling for age, CCI score and baseline procedure.
CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index.
In comparison to percutaneous procedures, the complication rate of bronchoscopic procedures is considerably lower, with a published pneumothorax rate of approximately 1.5–3.0% [13–15]. Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgical Databases, Tukey and Wiener estimated the complication rates associated with bronchoscopy and reported 0.97, 0.55, 0.58% for pneumothorax, pneumothorax with chest tube and hemorrhage, respectively [16]. In our study bronchoscopic biopsy complication rates for pneumothorax, pneumothorax with chest tube placement and hemorrhage were 1.8, 0.1 and 0.6%, respectively. The low rates relative to those reported elsewhere may be attributable to our conservative use of codes for the identification of these events (Supplementary Materials 1 & Supplementary Materials 2). In this database, the majority of codes used to identify pneumothorax were 518.0 and variations of 512.x all of which are nonspecific relative to the timing of the biopsy procedure. Including these in the definition would increase the frequency of these complications substantially.
The frequency of surgical biopsy was 6.6% and published complication rates are 5% inclusive of air leaks, pneumonia and death [3]. While this data set did not contain death outcomes, air leaks and hemorrhage occurred in approximately 5% of the patients undergoing surgical biopsy.
With the exception of hemorrhage in bronchoscopy patients, the complication rates for those undergoing multiple biopsy procedures was not substantially different than those undergoing a single procedure. Reasons for this are unclear but may be attributable to multiple procedures being conducted during the same time frame as the initial procedure. Thus, the ability to distinguish complication rates in this compacted time period is limited. In addition, the analysis of repeat biopsies in general (e.g., choice of procedure, time interval between the first and subsequent biopsies and complication rate) is limited by the fact that the reasons for repeat biopsy (e.g., insufficient material for a definitive diagnosis, more material needed for molecular diagnostics, a pathological examination following surgery or suspicion of reoccurrence) are unavailable in these administrative data systems. The use of information contained in an electronic health record may fill the gap of information in this regard.
Database limitations
As with any data source, MarketScan has limitations. Some limitations have to do with the nature of claims data and others with the nature of our sample population. The MarketScan claims data come mostly from large employers providing coverage for their employees and dependents. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to the population as a whole. The analytic files are based on payors who submit claims data and may not be representative of certain regions or the entire country. We used a single primary diagnosis of lung cancer as evidence of lung cancer and did not have a confirmed pathological diagnosis of cancer as no chart extraction was used for this evaluation or for the records included in the analysis. Ramsey et al. evaluated the sensitivity of a single medical claim with lung cancer diagnosis which is further confirmed with the SEER registry and reported a sensitivity of 99.4% for commercial plan members of lung cancer identified by one recorded diagnosis of lung cancer [17]. We conducted a sensitivity analysis using two diagnoses recorded within 90 days of one another and at least 14 days apart to maximize confidence in the accuracy of the lung cancer diagnosis. This analysis substantially reduced the size of the analytical sample by approximately 80% but the 2 groups were very comparable both in demographics and the type and frequency of biopsy procedures.
There are also limitations when defining an episode of care for analysis. Our analysis focused on a 12-month episode of care; therefore, the biopsy procedure performed could have been for a re-occurrence of disease, thus affecting the purpose of the biopsy, especially in a patient with suspected late stage disease.
Conclusion
In our study population repeat biopsies were common (46%). Reasons for this are not readily apparent from these data but presumably were performed to help direct treatment efforts or were due to poor diagnostic yields, causing a delay to patients receiving a confirmed diagnosis. These delays, as long as 3 months in our study, can have significant impact on disease progression while treatment is on hold. Soukiasian et al. recognized upstaging in 21.7% of patients within 1 week and up to 31.5% in 8 weeks [18]. Additionally, recent advances in molecular testing allow for optimization of treatment and consequently, diagnostic yield is critically important. The impact on treatment and lives can be significantly impacted if interventions are offered to diminish the number and subsequently the time between abnormality, diagnosis, and treatment. Further analysis is required to better understand the order and frequency of the diagnostic test and the intervals of time in between diagnostic work up and treatment plans to identify potential process improvements in current patient pathways.
Future perspective
Targeting early diagnosis with technologies able to access and biopsy far reaches of the lung will decrease the time between diagnosis and treatment. This coupled with quicker access to targeted therapies will shift the current stage at diagnosis from 21% stage 1 and 2 to 50% stage 1 and 2 and have a substantial impact on survival.
Summary points.
Lung cancer patients received an average of 1.7 biopsies prior to diagnosis.
46% of lung cancer patients received two or more biopsies.
The distribution of biopsies was percutaneous (47%), bronchoscopic (43%) and surgical (10%).
For the 46% of patients with multiple biopsies the time lag between first biopsy and diagnosis was an average of 57 days.
Complication rates for those undergoing multiple biopsy procedures was not substantially different than those undergoing a single procedure.
Supplementary Material
Footnotes
Supplementary data
To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/lmt-2020-0022
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the study design, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content.
Financial & competing interests disclosure
This research was funded by Intuitive, 1020 Kifer Road, Sunnyvale, CA 94086. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.
Writing assistance was provided by JM Sprafka, MPH, PhD, Woodford Research Associates was funded by Intuitive.
Ethical conduct of research
All study data were accessed with protocols compliant with U.S. patient confidentiality requirements, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 regulations. The database is fully de-identified and compliant with HIPAA regulations. This study was exempted from Institutional Review Board approval.
Data sharing statement
This administrative database was purchased via a contract with IBM MarketScan.
Open access
This work is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest
- 1.American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2020 (2020). www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2020/cancer-facts-and-figures-2020.pdf
- 2.National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, epidemiology and end results (2020). https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/lungb.html
- 3.Doubeni CA, Wilkinson JM, Korsen N, Midthun DE. Lung cancer screening guidelines implementation in primary care: a call to action. Ann. Fam. Med. 18(3), 196–201 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Gould MK, Donington J, Lynch WR. et al. Evaluation of individuals with pulmonary nodules: when is it lung cancer? Diagnosis and management of lung cancer. 3rd ed: American Collage of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 143(Suppl. 5), e93s–e119s (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Version 2.2019 — November 21 (2018). www.nccn.org/ [DOI] [PubMed]
- 6.Hansen L. The MarketScan databases for life sciences researchers (2016). www.ibm.com/watson-health/about/truven-health-analytics
- 7.Vyas KS, Davenport DL, Ferraris VA, Saha SP. Mediastinoscopy: trends and practice patterns in the United States. South. Med. J. 106(10), 539–544 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Shinde R, Cao X, Kothari S. Biopsy procedures and molecular testing utilization and related costs in patients with metastatic lung cancer. J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 22(10), 1194–1203 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Gildea TR, Byfield SD, Hogarth DK, Wilson DS, Quinn CC. A retrospective analysis of delays in the diagnosis of lung cancer and associated costs. Clinicoecon. Outcomes Res. 9, 261–269 (2017). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.DiBardino DM, Yarmus LB, Semaan RW. Transthoracic needle biopsy of the lung. J. Thorac. Dis. 7(S4), S304–S316 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wiener RS, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Population-based risk of complications following transthoracic needle lung biopsy of a pulmonary nodule. Ann. Intern. Med. 155(3), 137–144 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Maybody M, Muallem N, Brown KT. et al. Autologous blood patch injection versus hydrogel plug-in CT-guided lung biopsy: a prospective randomized trial. Radiology 290(2), 547–554 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Memoli JSW, Nietert PJ, Silvestri GA. Meta-analysis of guided bronchoscopy for the evaluation of the pulmonary nodule. Chest 142(2), 385–393 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gildea TR, Mazzone PJ, Karnak D, Meziane M, Mehta AC. Electromagnetic navigation diagnostic bronchoscopy: a prospective study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 174(9), 982–989 (2006). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X. et al. Diagnostic yield and complications of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung lesions: results of the AQuIRE Registry. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 193(1), 68–77 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Tukey MH, Wiener RS. Population-based estimates of transbronchial lung biopsy utilization and complications. Respir. Med. 106(11), 1559–1565 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; • Evaluates lung cancer treatment and diagnosis using information from large administrative databases.
- 17.Ramsey SD, Scoggins JF, Blough DK, McDermott BA, Reyes CM. Sensitivity of administrative claims to identify incident cases of lung cancer: a comparison of 3 health plans. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 15(8), 659–668 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; • Study that evaluates lung cancer treatment and diagnosis using information from large administrative databases.
- 18.Soukiasian HJ, Espinoza-Mercado F, Borgella J, Berz D, Imai T. Effects of time from completed clinical staging to surgery: does it make a difference in stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer? Presented at: AATS 98th Annual Meeting. CA, USA: (28 April–1 May 2018). [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.