4.2 Article

Clinical relevance of sputum cytology and chest X-ray in patients with suspected lung tumors

期刊

INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 47, 期 13, 页码 1199-1205

出版社

JAPAN SOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.47.0777

关键词

sputum cytology; roentgenographically occult lung cancer; photodynamic therapy; endobronchial irradiation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To review diagnostic procedures, therapeutic modalities, and follow-up methods in patients with suspected lung tumors. Methods We retrospectively examined 70 patients who underwent a complete medical checkup because they had been positive for sputum cytology and had presented no chest X-ray findings for the 10-year period between 1994 and 2004. To make a diagnosis, we conducted the first complete medical checkup that included chest X-ray, sputum cytology, chest computed tomography (CT), and bronchoscopy. In the case that no diagnosis could be made, we repeated the chest X-ray and sputum cytology every 3 to 6 months and additionally conducted chest CT and bronchoscopy according to abnormal findings. Results Among 70 patients, there were 36 and 13 who were diagnosed during the first complete medical checkup and follow-up, respectively, 13 who remained undiagnosed, and eight for whom follow-up was discontinued. Among the 49 diagnosed patients, 40, 8, and 1 patient had lung cancer, upper respiratory tract carcinoma (URTC), and esophageal carcinoma (EC), respectively. Among the 40 patients with lung cancer, 34 had a stage 0 or I tumor and 15 were radically treatable by photodynamic therapy and endobronchial irradiation. Nine among 11 patients whose lung cancer was detected during follow-up had a stage 0 or IA tumor. Conclusion Not only lung cancer but also URTC and EC were successfully detected in patients who were positive for sputum cytology and presented negative chest X-ray. Radical treatment was possible in 38 (76%) of 50 diagnosed patients, thus indicating the importance of follow-up through these procedures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据