OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the tissue adequacy and complication rates of percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB) for molecular analysis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search of the OVID-MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify original studies on the tissue adequacy and complication rates of PTNB for molecular analysis in patients with NSCLC published between January 2005 and January 2020. Inverse variance and random-effects models were used to evaluate and acquire meta-analytic estimates of the outcomes. To explore heterogeneity across the studies, univariable and multivariable meta-regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies with 2232 biopsies (initial biopsy, 8 studies; rebiopsy after therapy, 13 studies) were included. The pooled rates of tissue adequacy and complications were 89.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.6%-92.6%; I(2) = 0.81) and 17.3% (95% CI: 12.1%-23.1%; I(2) = 0.89), respectively. These rates were 93.5% and 22.2% for the initial biopsies and 86.2% and 16.8% for the rebiopsies, respectively. Severe complications, including pneumothorax requiring chest tube placement and massive hemoptysis, occurred in 0.7% of the cases (95% CI: 0%-2.2%; I(2) = 0.67). Multivariable meta-regression analysis showed that the tissue adequacy rate was not significantly lower in studies on rebiopsies (p = 0.058). The complication rate was significantly higher in studies that preferentially included older adults (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: PTNB demonstrated an average tissue adequacy rate of 89.3% for molecular analysis in patients with NSCLC, with a complication rate of 17.3%. PTNB is a generally safe and effective diagnostic procedure for obtaining tissue samples for molecular analysis in NSCLC. Rebiopsy may be performed actively with an acceptable risk of complications if clinically required.

Purpose Although chest CT has been discussed as a first-line test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), little research has explored the implications of CT exposure in the population. To review chest CT protocols and radiation doses in COVID-19 publications and explore the number needed to diagnose (NND) and the number needed to predict (NNP) if CT is used as a first-line test. Materials and Methods We searched nine highly cited radiology journals to identify studies discussing the CT-based diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Study-level information on the CT protocol and radiation dose was collected, and the doses were compared with each national diagnostic reference level (DRL). The NND and NNP, which depends on the test positive rate (TPR), were calculated, given a CT sensitivity of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91%–96%) and specificity of 37% (95% CI: 26%–50%), and applied to the early outbreak in Wuhan, New York, and Italy. Results From 86 studies, the CT protocol and radiation dose were reported in 81 (94.2%) and 17 studies (19.8%), respectively. Low-dose chest CT was used more than twice as often as standard-dose chest CT (39.5% vs.18.6%), while the remaining studies (44.2%) did not provide relevant information. The radiation doses were lower than the national DRLs in 15 of the 17 studies (88.2%) that reported doses. The NND was 3.2 scans (95% CI: 2.2–6.0). The NNPs at TPRs of 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5% were 2.2, 3.6, 8.0, 15.5 scans, respectively. In Wuhan, 35418 (TPR, 58%; 95% CI: 27710–56755) to 44840 (TPR, 38%; 95% CI: 35161–68164) individuals were estimated to have undergone CT examinations to diagnose 17365 patients. During the early surge in New York and Italy, daily NNDs changed up to 5.4 and 10.9 times, respectively, within 10 weeks. Conclusion Low-dose CT protocols were described in less than half of COVID-19 publications, and radiation doses were frequently lacking. The number of populations involved in a first-line diagnostic CT test could vary dynamically according to daily TPR; therefore, caution is required in future planning.