Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The utility of surgical lung biopsy in cancer patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

  • Chih-Hao Chang1,
  • Kuo-Chin Kao1, 2, 3,
  • Han-Chung Hu1, 2, 3,
  • Chen-Yiu Hung1, 2, 3,
  • Li-Fu Li1, 2, 3,
  • Ching-Yang Wu4,
  • Chih-Wei Wang5,
  • Jui-Ying Fu1, 2, 3,
  • Chung-Chi Huang1, 2, 3,
  • Ning-Hung Chen1, 2, 3,
  • Cheng-Ta Yang1, 2, 3 and
  • Ying-Huang Tsai1, 2, 3, 4Email author
Contributed equally
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery20138:128

https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-8-128

Received: 8 January 2013

Accepted: 13 May 2013

Published: 16 May 2013

Abstract

Background

This retrospective study evaluated the utility and safety of surgical lung biopsy (SLB) in cancer patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Methods

All cases of critically ill patients with cancer and diagnosed with ARDS who underwent SLB in a tertiary care hospital from January 2002 to July 2009 were reviewed. Clinical data including patient baseline characteristics, surgical complications, pathological findings, treatment alterations, and survival outcomes were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 16 critically ill patients with cancer diagnosed with ARDS who underwent SLB were enrolled. The meantime from ARDS onset to SLB was 3.0 ± 1.5 days. All SLB specimens offered a pathological diagnosis, and specific diagnoses were made in 9 of 16 patients. Biopsy findings resulted in a change in therapy in 11 of 16 patients. Overall, the SLB surgical complication rate was 19% (3/16). SLB did not directly cause the observed operative mortality. The ICU mortality rate was 38% (6/16). Patients who switched therapies after SLB had a trend toward decreased mortality than patients without a change in therapy (27% versus 60%; P = 0.299).

Conclusions

In selected critically ill cancer patients with ARDS, SLB had a high diagnostic yield rate and an acceptable surgical complication rate.

Keywords

Surgical lung biopsy Cancer Acute respiratory distress syndrome Outcomes

Background

Survival rates for different types of cancer patients have improved in recent decades [1]. As a result of increased survival and more aggressive cancer treatments, patients with cancer have required more frequent admissions to hospital intensive care units (ICU). It has been reported that European ICUs admit patients with cancer approximately 15% of the time. Reasons for admission include postoperative care, sepsis, acute respiratory failure (ARF) and treatment related toxicity [2, 3]. Treatment outcomes were comparable between solid cancer patients and the non-cancer population, but the patients with hematological cancers had a higher hospital mortality rate [2]. In pooled studies between 1999 and 2005, cancer patients diagnosed with ARF who required mechanical ventilation demonstrated a high mortality rate of approximately 75% [4].

Cancer patients with ARF without a definite diagnosis have a higher mortality rate than patients with a definite diagnosis [5]. The mortality rate of patients with ARDS has been demonstrated to range from 35% to 60% in the general population [6]. The 28-day mortality rate in neutropenic cancer patients with ARDS was 63% [7]. The presence of ARDS was also independent prognostic factors for hospital mortality in patients with hematological cancers or in solid cancer patients [2]. Furthermore, all cancer patients with ARDS, one of the most severe forms of ARF, had died without a definitive diagnosis (9 out of 9) [5]. Due to individual patient differences, their underlying cancer status, and family concerns, their respective intensivists may hesitate to perform an invasive procedure in these critically ill patients. To improve survival outcomes, aggressive diagnostic techniques that offer a more definitive diagnosis, and subsequently more effective treatment options, may be necessary.

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a diagnostic tool used to diagnose infections in the lungs. The diagnostic yield that has led to a change in treatment has been reported to be less than 50% in patients with ARDS [8]. Previous studies have demonstrated surgical lung biopsy (SLB) as a safe and useful diagnostic procedure in ARDS patients [911]. In cancer patients with ARF, BAL did not significantly increase diagnostic yield compared with noninvasive tests in a randomized controlled trial [12]. SLB is considered safe and has been recommended for use in patients with hematologic malignancies with diffuse pulmonary infiltrates [13, 14]. In those patients with hematological malignancies and unexplained pulmonary infiltrates, improved outcomes following a change in therapy was associated with a diagnosis obtained from SLB [15]. The feasibility of SLB in cancer patients with ARDS remains limited. This retrospective analysis evaluated the utility and safety of SLB in cancer patients with ARDS.

Methods

Patients

A retrospective chart review was performed from January 2002 to December 2009 of all patients with ARDS undergoing SLB at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, a tertiary care referral center. The study design was approved by the Institutional Review Board, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. All patients met ARDS criteria as defined by the American-European consensus conference in 1994 [16]. Cancer patients with ARDS who underwent SLB while supported with mechanical ventilation were included. Patients who did not need mechanical ventilator support at the time of SLB were excluded. Decisions to perform SLB were made by senior intensivists in charge of the respective ICUs. The indications of SLB were if ARDS was suspected to result from a noninfectious etiology, without obvious etiology, and with a possible indication for corticosteroid therapy based on clinical presentations with rapid progression, symmetric distribution on chest X-ray, and predominant ground-glass attenuation in high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the chest.

Data extraction before surgical lung biopsy

Medical records were reviewed and analyzed for the following data: age, sex, underlying diseases, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores at admission to the ICU, ALI scores, positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP), PaO2/FiO2 ratio at ARDS diagnosis, dates of respiratory failure and biopsy, diagnostic procedures before biopsy(HRCT or BALs), and medications at time of biopsy. The location of BAL sampling was selected on the basis of HRCT findings or on a chest X-ray if HRCT was unavailable. Each specimen was analyzed for cell count following BAL, as well as bacterial examination for Legionella, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Pneumocistis jiroveci, and Mycobacteria, and for fungal, and virological analyses. Specimens were also sent for cytology and iron stain analysis. BAL results were considered positive if at least one microorganism grew to a concentration of more than 104 colony-forming units/ml.

Surgical lung biopsy

SLBs were performed in an operating room or at the bedside in an ICU by a trained thoracic surgeon. While under general anesthesia, SLB was performed using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or a 5-cm thoracotomy, dependant on the patient’s tolerance. The lung biopsy site was determined based on results from chest HRCT or chest X-ray. For VATS and thoracotomy, an endoscopic stapler-cutter (Endo-GIA, Tyco Health-care Group or Ethicon EndoSurgery; Johnson& Johnson) was used to secure the pulmonary margins. Any complications following surgery, such as postoperative air leak, pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, bleeding, wound infection, and postoperative respiratory acidosis were recorded. After the lung biopsy, all specimens were swabbed for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, fungal, and mycobacterial cultures. Each tissue specimen was cultured and examined by a pulmonary pathologist.

Data collection after surgical lung biopsy

Results regarding complications of SLB, pathological diagnosis, and postoperative therapeutic alterations were analyzed. Any change to therapy indicated that SLB results led to the addition of a new therapy or original therapy had been stopped. In addition, outcome parameters, including mechanical ventilation weaning rate, ICU and hospital survival rates, and cause of death, were also evaluated.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS (SPSS for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) statistical package. All values are reported as means ± SD. Differences between subgroups were compared by using the χ 2 test or Fisher’s exact test when the expected number of events was less than five. The significance level (α) for all statistical tests was set at 0.05, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Sixty eight ARDS patients underwent SLB in the past 8 years and 16 cancer patients had underlying solid tumor or hematologic malignancy and were chosen for study inclusion. A total of 16 critically ill cancer patients with ARDS who underwent SLB were enrolled. Baseline characteristics of the patients studied are presented in Table 1. Out of the 16 patients enrolled, 10 (62.5%) had a hematologic malignancy (5 had leukemia and 5 had lymphoma) and 6 patients (37.5%) had solid tumor (5 had lung cancer and 1 had breast cancer). Eight patients (50%) received routine chemotherapy regimens in one month. Two patients presented with neutropenia (neutrophil count <500 cells/mL) and 10 patients (63%) had a chest HRCT to evaluate the severity of disease and to select an appropriate biopsy site before SLB. The decisions not to perform chest CT in 6 patients were based on an assessment of potential risks of transport weighed against the potential benefits by the intensivists.
Table 1

Patient characteristics on the day of SLB (n = 16)

Age, mean±SD

55 ± 15

Male gender, n (%)

12 (75)

APACHE II on ICU admission, mean±SD

21 ± 5

Characteristics of the malignancy, n (%)

 

  Hematologic malignancy

10 (62.5)

  Solid tumor

6 (37.5)

Status of the malignancy at the day of SLB

 

  Recent diagnosis in 3 months

3 (19)

  Stable disease

5 (31)

  Progression disease

8 (50)

Chemotherapy in one month, n (%)

8 (50)

HRCT before SLB, n (%)

10 (62.5)

BAL before SLB, n (%)

15 (93.8)

PaO2/FiO2 ratio (mmHg), mean±SD

143 ± 55

PEEP (cm H2O), mean±SD

10.9 ± 2.2

Tidal volume (ml/kg PBW)

7.3 ± 1.2

ALI score, mean±SD

3.1 ± 0.3

Days from ARDS onset to SLB, mean±SD

3.0 ± 1.5

Mechanical ventilator days

10.1 ± 6.6

ICU length of stay

11.3 ± 6.3

Hospital length of stay

31.6 ± 18.6

SLB: surgical lung biopsy; APACHE II: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; HRCT: high-resolution computed tomography; BAL: bronchoalveolar lavage; PaO2: arterial partial pressure of oxygen; FiO2: fraction of inspired oxygen; PEEP: positive-end expiratory pressure; PBW: predict body weight; ALI: acute lung injury.

All 16 patients underwent a flexible bronchoscopy before SLB. One patient did not undergo BAL due to severe hypoxemia during the bronchoscopy. Four patients received BAL prior to ARDS onset and the interval from BAL to SLB was 4.5 ± 0.6 days. The other 11 patients were performed BAL after ARDS onset and the interval from BAL to SLB was 2.4 ± 0.9 days. All microbiological cultures from the BAL in these 15 patients were negative for bacterial, fungal and virological cultures. In one patient who had a diagnosis of Pneumocistis jiroveci pneumonia, the cytology of BAL and the histology had the same results. The reason of SLB in this patient was try to find the other possible etiology of ARDS other than Pneumocistis jiroveci pneumonia. One patient underwent a transbronchoscopic biopsy before SLB and the biopsy revealed acute and chronic inflammation.

All sixteen patients were intubated and supported with mechanical ventilation after the development of ARDS. For these ARDS patients, pressure control ventilation mode with a low tidal volume protective strategy was applied. Fifteen of 16 patients (93.8%) received empiric antibiotic treatment prior SLB, and 2 patients (12.5%) received steroid therapy before SLB. The days from ARDS onset to SLB were average of 3.0 ± 1.5.

Underlying malignancies, operation methods, pathological findings, treatment alterations, and outcomes are presented in Table 2. Of the 16 patients examined, biopsies were performed from the left lingular lobe, right middle lobe (n = 4; 25%), right lower lobe (n = 3; 19%), and left lower lobe (n = 3; 19%). Fourteen patients (88%) underwent SLB in an operating room and 2 patients (12.5%) received bedside SLB in the ICU. For SLB, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) was used in 7 patients (44%), and thoracotomy was performed in 9 patients (56%).
Table 2

Underlying malignancies, operation methods, pathological findings, treatment alterations, and outcomes

Patient

Underlying malignancies

Operation methods

Pathological findings

Treatment alterations

Outcome

1

AML, M2 types

thoracotomy

Acute leukemia with lung involvement

chemotherapy

Deceased

2

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma, stage IVB

thoracotomy

Interstitial pneumonitis; Pneumocystis jiroveci infection

cotrimoxazole

Survival

3

CML, post BMT

thoracotomy

DAD; Pneumocystis jiroveci infection

cotrimoxazole

Deceased

4

NSCLC, stage IIIb

thoracotomy

Intersitial pneumonitis with fibrosis

No

Deceased

5

ALL, post BMT

VATS

DAD, Aspergillosis infection

No

Deceased

6

NSCLC, stage IV

VATS

DAD; metastatic adenocarcinoma

corticosteroids and stop antibiotics

Survival

7

ALL

VATS

Desquamative interstitial pneumonitis

corticosteroids

Survival

8

Breast cancer,

thoracotomy

Interstitial pneumonitis with fibrosis

no

Survival

9

NSCLC, stage IV

thoracotomy

DAD, acute and organizing phase

corticosteroids and stop antibiotics

Survival

10

AML, M4 types

thoracotomy

Bronchopneumonia with organizing change

no

Survival

11

NSCLC, stage IV

VATS

Interstitial pneumonitis with organizing change

corticosteroids

Survival

12

Mantle cell lymphoma stage IVa

VATS

DAD, acute and organizing phase; viral inclusion bodies

corticosteroids and stop antibiotics

Survival

13

NHL, stage IVB

thoracotomy

DAD; Pneumocystis jiroveci infection

no

Deceased

14

SCLC, limited stage

VATS

DAD, acute and organizing phase

stop anti-tuberculosis agent

Deceased

15

Mantle cell lymphoma, stage IIIA

thoracotomy

Acute fibrosis and organizing pneumonia

corticosteroids and stop antibiotics

Survival

16

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma, stage IVA

VATS

DAD, acute and organizing phase

corticosteroids and stop antibiotics

Survival

AML: acute myeloid leukemia; CML: chronic myeloid leukemia; DAD: diffuse alveolar damage; NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer; ALL: acute lymphocytic leukemia; BMT: bone marrow transplantation; VATS: video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery; NHL: non-Hodgkin lymphoma; SCLC: small cell lung cancer.

All biopsies provided sufficient evidence for a pathological diagnosis with 100% yield. Nine patients (56%) had specific diagnoses: Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (n = 3), Aspergillus flavus (n = 1), viral pneumonia (n = 1), bacterial pneumonia (n = 1), leukemia with lung involvement (n = 1), metastatic carcinoma (n = 1), and desquamative interstitial pneumonitis (n = 1). Diffuse alveolar damage was identified in 8 patients (50%). An example of pathologic result obtained in the patient with ARDS was shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1

68-year-old man had mantle cell lymphoma under chemotherapy treatment. He was admitted to hospital due to fever and respiratory failure. Chest X-ray and HRCT were taken (Figure 1 A and 1 B). Because the diagnosis of bilateral lung infiltration remained uncertain after initial evaluation, the patient underwent Video-assisted thoracoscopic lung biopsy. The biopsy result revealed diffuse alveolar damage, hyaline membranes lining the alveolar surfaces (Hematoxylin and Eosin stain, 200X) (Figure 1 C). The possibility of involvement by the previously diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma was excluded.

Surgical complications were reported in 3 patients (19%). The first patient had an intraoperative complication with minor bleeding over the staple line and postoperative respiratory acidosis. The second patient had new onset postoperative respiratory acidosis. The third patient had postoperative subcutaneous emphysema. Of the 7 patients receiving VATS, 2 patients had respiratory acidosis with a pH of 7.3 ± 0.2 and PaCO2 of 62 ± 32 mmHg within 24 hours after SLB. Overall, the incidence of surgical complications was 11% (1 out of 9) and 29% (2 out of 7) for patients undergoing thoracotomy and VATS, respectively. When SLB was performed in an operating room the surgical complication rate was 21% (3 out of 14). When SLB was performed at the patient’s bedside in the ICU, no surgical complication was reported. No complications following surgery resulted in death.

According to the SLB results, alterations to therapy occurred in 11 patients (69%). The interval between SLB and therapy alteration was 3.4 ± 1.5 days. Corticosteroids were added and antibiotics were discontinued in 5 patients, corticosteroids were added in 2 patients, cotrimoxazole was added in 2 patients, anti-tuberculosis agents were discontinued in 1 patient, and chemotherapy was added in 1 patient. In total, 10 out of 16 patients (63%) were successfully weaned from a mechanical ventilator. The ICU mortality rate was similar to the overall hospital mortality rate (38% [6 of 16]). Patients who required alterative therapy after SLB had a decreased mortality rate compared with patients who did not require alternative therapy (27.3% vs. 60%, P = 0.299). The cause of death was severe hypoxemia (n = 3), septic shock with multiple organ failure (n = 2), and intracranial hemorrhage (n = 1).

Discussion

This small case series study reports that SLB might be considered a useful and safe procedure for cancer patients with ARDS. The rate of treatment alterations made after SLB was increased to 69% (11 out of 16) and patients who required treatment alterations had a decreased mortality rate over patients who did not require a treatment alteration. A definitive diagnosis by using SLB may help intensivists make more informed decisions and offer additional treatment options for patients with cancer and ARDS.

Bronchoalveolar lavage is an invasive diagnostic procedure to identify the cause of ARF in patients with cancer. However, the diagnostic yield of BAL in patients with cancer is not commonly satisfied [4, 17]. Recent studies have shown no difference in diagnostic yield between BAL and noninvasive methods when used in patients with malignancies and ARF [12, 18]. In the current 15 critically ill cancer patients with ARDS who had received BAL examination, only one patient received a definitive diagnosis by BAL. The possible explanation for the low yield BAL diagnostic rate might be the selection bias because the patients with microbiological diagnosis based on BAL results are unlikely to undergo SLB. The diagnosis for remaining 14 patients who had negative BAL results varied: 5 patients had positive infectious etiology as determined by SLB histology (Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia [n = 2], aspergilosis [n = 1], bacterial pneumonia [n = 1], and viral pneumonia [n = 1]). Another one Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia patient was diagnosed by BAL cytology and SLB. Occult infections in those patients determined to be critically ill may be more prevalent than previously thought. The postmortem autopsy findings in critically ill cancer patients showed that the major missed diagnosis was infection [19]. However, if the infection was missed, the precise treatment for the infection would be delayed. In immune-compromised patients with cancer, based on SLB results, it may be necessary to add antibiotics, antifungal, antiviral therapies, or corticosteroids.

ARDS is a clinical-radiographic diagnosis. Some diseases with similar clinical presentations, such as cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and acute eosinophilic pneumonia can mimic and/or cause ARDS and may require other specific treatments [20]. Diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) is the histopathologic finding that corresponds to the clinical entity of ARDS [21]. In a postmortem examination, 50% of 64 patients with ARDS had DAD [22]. In 284 autopsy patients with risk factors for ARDS, the sensitivity and specificity of the criteria of ARDS was only 76% (CI, 67% to 83%) and 75% (CI, 68% to 81%), respectively [23]. The current results demonstrate that 50% (8 out of 16) of cancer patients with ARDS diagnosed clinically actually had DAD. It has been reported that a diagnosis of DAD is found in approximately 40-56% of ARDS patients [10, 11].

In a study examining critically ill patients with cancer and ARF, the lack of a definitive diagnosis is predictive of poor survival [5]. A retrospective study that examined 63 patients with hematologic malignancies demonstrated improved survival when SLB resulted in a specific diagnosis [13]. It has also been reported that in patients with hematologic malignancies and unexplained pulmonary infiltrates, a specific diagnosis based on SLB was associated with a lower mortality rate when compared with a nonspecific diagnoses [15]. It is crucial to make a definitive diagnosis as early as possible using aggressive diagnostic techniques for patients with cancer and ARDS. The results of this study showed that 56% (9 out of 16) critically ill cancer patients with ARDS had a specific diagnosis after SLB. This result suggests that SLB is a useful diagnostic tool in critically ill patients with cancer and ARDS.

For hematologic malignancies in non-ARDS patients, some studies have suggested SLB is useful for diagnosis and modifications to treatment, but that its effect on survival remains unclear [24, 25]. In the current study, the patients with cancer and ARDS demonstrated a rate of therapy alteration after SLB of 69% (11 out of 16); similar results have been previously reported in ARDS patients (range: 60% to 78%) [10, 11, 26]. For ARDS patients receiving SLB, previous retrospective studies could not determine the benefit of SLB in terms of survival [911]. However, a prospective study in 100 patients with unresolved ARDS showed that survival was significantly improved with contributory SLB than with noncontributory SLB (67% versus 14%, P < 0.001) [26]. In the current study, the overall survival rate was 62% and patients who required a change to their treatment after SLB demonstrated increased survival compared with those patients without a change to their treatment (72.7% versus 40%, P = 0.299). The most common treatment alteration in this study was antimicrobial therapy adjustment, especially in discontinuing antibiotics (6 out of 11). Discontinued antibiotics could avoid side effects of antibiotics, drug and drug interaction and bacterial resistant strain developed.

The reported rate of complications associated with SLB in ARDS patients have ranged from 17% to 39% [911]. The reported rate of complication associated with postoperative SLB was 19% (3 out of 16) in the current study. Among these three patients with postoperative complications, two patients presented with respiratory acidosis after SLB. Postoperative respiratory acidosis is a risk factor for postoperative hypotension. The causes of respiratory acidosis in these 2 patients may have been due to hypoventilation in one lung during the VATS surgical procedure. Another possible explanation for respiratory acidosis was a change to the ventilator setting after the operation. To prevent postoperative air leakage from developing, we routinely decreased the airway pressure by reducing PEEP 2 cmH2O from the baseline post-surgery. For ARDS patients with high PEEP, the reduction of PEEP levels may cause the collapse of alveoli and hypoventilation. No death was attributed to SLB in the current study. The risk for complications resulting from SLB in patients with cancer was therefore acceptable, even for the most critically ill patients with ARDS.

Limitations of the current study should be addressed. First, this is a single medical center experience, not a generality. Second, the current study was retrospective with relatively small sample size, the patients who received SLB were not randomized and there was no control group. It is difficult to determine whether SLB is predictive of a survival benefit in cancer patients with ARDS. Nevertheless, understanding specific etiology would allow the introduction of specific therapy if such a therapy is available. Second, the results of this study cannot be generally applied to all ARDS patients. The decision to perform SLB was selective and patients who were referred for SLB were unlikely to be representative of the larger ARDS population. This selection bias caused by patients and intensivists would likely increase the possibility of an alternative treatment. Finally, some specific diagnosis such as diffuse alveolar hemorrhage and viral pneumonitis may be underdiagnosed or delayed because a definitive diagnosis depends on the availability of laboratory facilities. A standardized comprehensive diagnostic examination of BAL before SLB should be established in the future.

Conclusion

This retrospective study concluded that SLB had a high diagnostic yield rate and an acceptable complication rate for selected cancer patients with ARDS. The rate of treatment alteration after SLB was high (up to 69%) and patients who required treatment alterations had reduced mortality rate than those patients who did not require a treatment alteration. The surgical complication rate of SLB was low (19%) and considered acceptable. It can’t conclude that SLB itself can reduce the mortality. Furthermore, a prospective, randomized controlled trial to investigate the benefit of SLB on survival outcome in cancer patients with ARDS is needed. However, such a study is unlikely to be performed because SLB in cancer patients with ARDS is very low frequency (16 patients in 8 years).

Notes

Abbreviations

ARF: 

Acute respiratory failure

APACHE: 

Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation

BAL: 

Bronchoalveolar lavage

DAD: 

Diffuse alveolar damage

HRCT: 

High-resolution computed tomography

ICU: 

intensive care units

PEEP: 

Positive-end expiratory pressure

SLB: 

Surgical lung biopsy

VATS: 

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Thoracic Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine
(2)
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine
(3)
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Chang-Gung University College of Medicine
(4)
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine
(5)
Department of Pathology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine

References

  1. Brenner H: Long-term survival rates of cancer patients achieved by the end of the 20th century: a period analysis. Lancet. 2002, 360 (9340): 1131-1135. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11199-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Taccone FS, Artigas AA, Sprung CL, Moreno R, Sakr Y, Vincent JL: Characteristics and outcomes of cancer patients in European ICUs. Crit Care. 2009, 13 (1): R15-10.1186/cc7713.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Soares M, Caruso P, Silva E, Teles JM, Lobo SM, Friedman G, Dal Pizzol F, Mello PV, Bozza FA, Silva UV: Characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer requiring admission to intensive care units: a prospective multicenter study. Crit Care Med. 2010, 38 (1): 9-15. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181c0349e.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Azoulay E, Schlemmer B: Diagnostic strategy in cancer patients with acute respiratory failure. J Intensive Care Med. 2006, 32 (6): 808-822. 10.1007/s00134-006-0129-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Azoulay E, Thiery G, Chevret S, Moreau D, Darmon M, Bergeron A, Yang K, Meignin V, Ciroldi M, Le Gall JR: The prognosis of acute respiratory failure in critically ill cancer patients. Medicine. 2004, 83 (6): 360-370. 10.1097/01.md.0000145370.63676.fb.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Ranieri VM: Epidemiology and outcome of acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2003, 31 (4 Suppl): S296-S299.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Mokart D, van Craenenbroeck T, Lambert J, Textoris J, Brun JP, Sannini A, Chow-Chine L, Hamouda S, Fouche L, Ettori F: Prognosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome in neutropenic cancer patients. Eur Respir J. 2012, 40 (1): 169-176. 10.1183/09031936.00150611.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Terminella L, Sharma G: Diagnostic studies in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006, 18 (1): 2-7. 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2006.01.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Papazian L, Thomas P, Bregeon F, Garbe L, Zandotti C, Saux P, Gaillat F, Drancourt M, Auffray JP, Gouin F: Open-lung biopsy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anesthesiology. 1998, 88 (4): 935-944. 10.1097/00000542-199804000-00013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Patel SR, Karmpaliotis D, Ayas NT, Mark EJ, Wain J, Thompson BT, Malhotra A: The role of open-lung biopsy in ARDS. Chest. 2004, 125 (1): 197-202. 10.1378/chest.125.1.197.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kao KC, Tsai YH, Wu YK, Chen NH, Hsieh MJ, Huang SF, Huang CC: Open lung biopsy in early-stage acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2006, 10 (4): R106-10.1186/cc4981.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Azoulay E, Mokart D, Lambert J, Lemiale V, Rabbat A, Kouatchet A, Vincent F, Gruson D, Bruneel F, Epinette-Branche G: Diagnostic strategy for hematology and oncology patients with acute respiratory failure: randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010, 182 (8): 1038-1046. 10.1164/rccm.201001-0018OC.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. White DA, Wong PW, Downey R: The utility of open lung biopsy in patients with hematologic malignancies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000, 161 (3 Pt 1): 723-729.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee YC, Wu CT, Hsu HH, Huang PM, Chang YL: Surgical lung biopsy for diffuse pulmonary disease: experience of 196 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005, 129 (5): 984-990. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.07.033.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Zihlif M, Khanchandani G, Ahmed HP, Soubani AO: Surgical lung biopsy in patients with hematological malignancy or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and unexplained pulmonary infiltrates: improved outcome with specific diagnosis. Am J Hematol. 2005, 78 (2): 94-99. 10.1002/ajh.20258.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bernard GR, Artigas A, Brigham KL, Carlet J, Falke K, Hudson L, Lamy M, Legall JR, Morris A, Spragg R: The American-European Consensus Conference on ARDS. Definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes, and clinical trial coordination. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994, 149 (3 Pt 1): 818-824.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rabbat A, Chaoui D, Lefebvre A, Roche N, Legrand O, Lorut C, Rio B, Marie JP, Huchon G: Is BAL useful in patients with acute myeloid leukemia admitted in ICU for severe respiratory complications?. Leukemia j of the Leukemia Soc of Am, Leukemia Res Fund, UK. 2008, 22 (7): 1361-1367. 10.1038/leu.2008.100.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Azoulay E, Mokart D, Rabbat A, Pene F, Kouatchet A, Bruneel F, Vincent F, Hamidfar R, Moreau D, Mohammedi I: Diagnostic bronchoscopy in hematology and oncology patients with acute respiratory failure: prospective multicenter data. Crit Care. 2008, 36 (1): 100-107. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000295590.33145.C4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Pastores SM, Dulu A, Voigt L, Raoof N, Alicea M, Halpern NA: Premortem clinical diagnoses and postmortem autopsy findings: discrepancies in critically ill cancer patients. Crit Care. 2007, 11 (2): R48-10.1186/cc5782.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Dakin J, Griffiths M: The pulmonary physician in critical care 1: pulmonary investigations for acute respiratory failure. Thorax. 2002, 57 (1): 79-85. 10.1136/thorax.57.1.79.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Katzenstein AL, Bloor CM, Leibow AA: Diffuse alveolar damage–the role of oxygen, shock, and related factors. A review. Am J Pathol. 1976, 85 (1): 209-228.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. de Hemptinne Q, Remmelink M, Brimioulle S, Salmon I, Vincent JL: ARDS: a clinicopathological confrontation. Chest. 2009, 135 (4): 944-949. 10.1378/chest.08-1741.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Esteban A, Fernandez-Segoviano P, Frutos-Vivar F, Aramburu JA, Najera L, Ferguson ND, Alia I, Gordo F, Rios F: Comparison of clinical criteria for the acute respiratory distress syndrome with autopsy findings. Ann Intern Med. 2004, 141 (6): 440-445. 10.7326/0003-4819-141-6-200409210-00009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lachapelle KJ, Morin JE: Benefit of open lung biopsy in patients with respiratory failure. Canadian journal of surgery Journal canadien de chirurgie. 1995, 38 (4): 316-321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim K, Lee MH, Kim J, Lee KS, Kim SM, Jung MP, Han J, Sung KW, Kim WS, Jung CW: Importance of open lung biopsy in the diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with hematologic malignancies. Am J Hematol. 2002, 71 (2): 75-79. 10.1002/ajh.10168.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Papazian L, Doddoli C, Chetaille B, Gernez Y, Thirion X, Roch A, Donati Y, Bonnety M, Zandotti C, Thomas P: A contributive result of open-lung biopsy improves survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Crit Care Med. 2007, 35 (3): 755-762. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000257325.88144.30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Chang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement