Skip to main content
JTCVS Techniques logoLink to JTCVS Techniques
editorial
. 2022 Feb 15;12:198–199. doi: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.12.016

Commentary: Radiofrequency identification of pulmonary nodules: Is there an app for that?

Shamus R Carr 1, Chuong D Hoang 1,
PMCID: PMC8987611  PMID: 35403059

graphic file with name fx1.jpg

Shamus R. Carr, MD, FACS (left), and Chuong D. Hoang, MD, FACS (right)

Central Message.

Use of a wireless radiofrequency identification system may have a future role to aid identification of pulmonary nodules that are typically nonpalpable and that may harbor malignancy.

See Article page 185.

The prevalence of ground-glass opacities (GGO) is as high as 9% in patients undergoing computed tomography scan.1, 2, 3 The reported incidence of cancer in such lesions can be more than 50%.4 Most clinicians watch these GGO with serial imaging and treat when either definitive growth has been identified or the lesion develops a solid component (ie, nodule). This strategy opens the opportunity for some nodules that have malignancy to continue to grow and possibly metastasize.

The use of various imaging modalities or radiomics to improve diagnostic accuracy (without invasive procedure) of GGO with malignancy continues to be a challenge.5 Furthermore, biopsy approaches are not perfect. The overall diagnostic yield of a biopsy by either a transthoracic or transbronchial method of a 20 mm GGO is about 64% and drops to below 50% when the lesion is <10 mm in size.6,7 This problem is best understood by the so-called chocolate chip cookie analogy. If one passes a needle through a chocolate chip cookie to obtain a biopsy and then tastes it, unless you get a piece of chocolate (ie, malignancy), it is just a cookie (ie, normal lung). In nondiagnostic cases, the patient harboring the GGO is then usually followed with repeat imaging and subjected to risks without an answer. Localization for a thoracic surgeon using palpation has a failure rate reported to be as high as 63%, and conversion to thoracotomy does occur.8 Advances such as dye marking, needle localization with a hook-wire, and fiducial placement have all been reported. However, the success rate is inconsistent and varies from 56% to 100% in various publications.9,10

Everyone can now reliably find missing car keys and wallets with the use of geolocalizing chips and a smartphone app. Thus, the idea for using radiofrequency identification (RFID) technology to find pulmonary nodules. Yutaka and colleagues11 report on the feasibility of RFID markers for small AND deep lung lesions undergoing resection. In the first 11 patients of their study, they were successful 100% of the time. This is even more impressive because the nodules ranged from 3.0 to 11.0 mm and were located a mean depth from the visceral pleura of 11.4 ± 8.4 mm. Although some authors advocate other localization techniques, another advantage of RFID localization is the ability to obtain margins at the time of resection (based on sound cues).

Although this is a small series that requires specialized equipment and experience, the broad applicability of this technology is clear compared with other localization techniques. However, the cost of technological advancement should be considered and weighed, taking into account the direct surgical costs plus the costs of the alternative (ie, repeat imaging), resection of benign lesions (occurred in 1 of 11 patients in the current study), and development of more advanced disease due to a delay in resection.12 Finally, the long-term results of the JCOG 080213 and the CALGB 14050314 trials may further play a role in which type of resection is offered to patients based on tumor size and radiographic characteristics. If nonanatomic sublobar resection has a role, obtaining appropriate margins will be paramount.15 This is where the use of RFID-guided resection may really shine.

Now, if we could just find our car keys.

Footnotes

Disclosures: The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest

References

  • 1.Yankelevitz D.F., Yip R., Smith J.P., Lian M., Liu Y., Zu D.M., et al. CT screening for lung cancer: nonsolid nodules in baseline and annual repeat rounds. Radiology. 2015;277:555–564. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015142554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Henschke C.I., Yip R., Smith J.P., Wolf A.S., Flores R.M., Lian M., et al. CT screening for lung cancer: part-solid nodules in baseline and annual repeat rounds. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207:1176–1184. doi: 10.2214/ajr.16.16043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Horeweg N., van der Aalst C.M., Thunnissen E., Nackaerts K., Weenink C., Groen J.M., et al. Characteristics of lung cancers detected by computer tomography screening in the randomized NELSON trial. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2013;187:848–854. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201209-1651oc. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lim H.-J., Ahn S., Lee K.S., Han J., Shim Y.M., Woo S., et al. Persistent pure ground-glass opacity lung nodules ≥ 10 mm in diameter at CT scan histopathologic comparisons and prognostic implications. Chest. 2013;144:1291–1299. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-2987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tunali I., Gillies R.J., Schabath M.B. Application of radiomics and artificial intelligence for lung cancer precision medicine. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2021;11:a039537. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a039537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shimizu K., Ikeda N., Tsuboi M., Hirano T., Kato H. Percutaneous CT-guided fine needle aspiration for lung cancer smaller than 2cm and revealed by ground-glass opacity at CT. Lung Cancer. 2006;51:173–179. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2005.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ikezawa Y., Shinagawa N., Sukoh N., Morimoto M., Kikuchi H., Watanabe M., et al. Usefulness of endobronchial ultrasonography with a guide sheath and virtual bronchoscopic navigation for ground-glass opacity lesions. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103:470–475. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Suzuki K., Nagai K., Yoshida J., Ohmatsu H., Takahaski K., Nishimura M., et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for small indeterminate pulmonary nodules indications for preoperative marking. Chest. 1999;115:563–568. doi: 10.1378/chest.115.2.563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Park C.H., Han K., Hur J., Lee S.M., Lee J.W., Hwang S.H., et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of preoperative lung localization for pulmonary nodules. Chest. 2017;151:316–328. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.09.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zaman M., Bilal H., Woo C.Y., Tang A. In patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery excision, what is the best way to locate a subcentimetre solitary pulmonary nodule in order to achieve successful excision? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;15:266–272. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivs068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yutaka Y., Sato T., Tanaka S., Miyahara S., Yoshizawa A., Morita S., et al. Feasibility study of a novel wireless localization technique using radiofrequency identification markers for small and deeply located lung lesions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Tech. 2022;12:185–195. doi: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.11.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Heiden B.T., Eaton D.B., Engelhardt K.E., Chang S.-H., Yan Y., Patel M.R., et al. Analysis of delayed surgical treatment and oncologic outcomes in clinical stage I non–small cell lung cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e2111613. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nakamura K., Saji H., Nakajima R., Okada M., Asamura H., Shibata T., et al. A phase III randomized trial of lobectomy versus limited resection for small-sized peripheral non–small cell lung cancer (JCOG0802/WJOG4607L) Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40:271–274. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyp156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Altorki N.K., Wang X., Wigle D., Gu L., Darling G., Ashrafi A.S., et al. Perioperative mortality and morbidity after sublobar versus lobar resection for early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer: post-hoc analysis of an international, randomised, phase 3 trial (CALGB/Alliance 140503) Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6:915–924. doi: 10.1016/s2213-2600(18)30411-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Schuchert M.J., Pettiford B.L., Keeley S., D’Amato T.A., Kilic A., Close J., et al. Anatomic segmentectomy in the treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;84:926–932. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from JTCVS Techniques are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES