Article Abstract

Management of lung nodules in Brazil—assessment of realities, beliefs and attitudes: a study by the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery (SBCT), the Brazilian Thoracic Society (SBPT) and the Brazilian College of Radiology (CBR)

Authors: Maria Teresa Ruiz Tsukazan, Ricardo Mingarini Terra, Frank Detterbeck, Ilka Lopes Santoro, Bruno Hochhegger, Gustavo de Souza Portes Meirelles, Gustavo Fortunato, Gustavo Faibischew Prado

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary nodules are common; some are inconsequential while others are malignant. Management of solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) in Brazil appears to be highly variable, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes. Assessment of the variability and the association with the degree of availability of resources can provide a foundation for development of clinical guidelines for management of SPN specific for the Brazilian setting.
Methods: A web-based survey was developed by thoracic surgeons, pulmonologists and radiologists to evaluate SPN perception and management. This survey was sent to their respective national societies members and answers collected between August and December 2016. That included multiple choice questions regarding age, specialty, SPN management, accessibility to exams and interventional procedures characterizing public (SUS) and supplementary private working settings.
Results: A total of 461 questionnaires were answered. More than half of participants live in cities with over one million people. Specialties were reasonable equilibrated with 43.5% radiologists, 33.5% thoracic surgeons, 20.3% pulmonologists and 2.6% others. Most of the respondents work in both public and private sector (72.7%). Private has a similar reality compared to well-developed nations regarding exams accessibility and interventions. SUS setting has a significant variability access according to the participants. CT is only easily available in 31.9% of cases, PET-CT is easily available in 24.4%, bronchoscopy is easily available for 42.8%, transthoracic needle biopsy is only easily available in 13.9% and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) biopsy is not available in 19.5%. When there is a probability of malignancy of 50% or higher, 46.5% of participants would be comfortable recommending surgical biopsy. When the probability is higher than 10%, only 36.9% would be comfortable following up radiologically.
Conclusions: Brazil has a very different setting for public and private patients regarding exams accessibility and management options. That might explain why participants have a higher tendency to choose interventional diagnosis and explains why current guidelines may not be applicable to developing countries reality.