TABLE 2.

Navigation Outcome and Diagnostic Outcome for Both Study Arms

	Primary CBCT and AF Approach (%)			Primary EMN Approach (%)
Navigation Outcome (Lesion)	Center	In Contact	Total	Center	In Contact	Total
Primary navigation	66.1	10.2	76.3*	50.1	2.1	52.2*
Combined with EMN/CBCT	+10.2	+3.4	+13.6†	+25.0	+10.4	+35.4†
Total	76.3	13.6	89.9‡	75.0	12.5	87.5‡
Total (per patient)	87.2	8.5	95.7‡	75.0	15.0	90.0‡
Diagnostic Accuracy (Patient)	Overall [n (%)]			Overall [n (%)]
Primary navigation	29 (61.7)			20 (50)
Combined with EMN/CBCT	4 (+8.5)			10 (+25)
Overall	33 (70.2§)			30 (75§)

The navigation outcome corresponds to the navigation success of the primary workflow on a per lesion basis. Navigation success was determined by tools proving center lesion access (center) or tools being in contact with but not centered within the lesion (in contact). The “combined with EMN/CBCT” row showcases outcome when all guidance modalities (CBCT+AF+EMN+rEBUS) were used in combination. The diagnostic accuracy is on a per patient basis.

*Significant navigation success difference between arms (P=0.016).

†Significant increases in navigation success by addition of EMN-guidance to primary CBCT-based guidance and by addition of CBCT to primary EMN-based guidance (P=0.043 and 0.0002, respectively).

‡Nonsignificant differences in final navigation success between study arms. Significant italics values P=0.4974 and P=0.5291 for a per nodule and per patient comparison, respectively.

§Diagnostic accuracy significantly lower than navigation success (P=0.0007, but nonsignificant differences between study arms).

AF indicates augmented fluoroscopy; CBCT, cone-beam computed tomography; CT, computed tomography; EMN, electromagnetic navigation; rEBUS, radial endobronchial ultrasound mini probe imaging.