Radiographic manifestations of inoperable primary bronchogenic carcinoma

AJBM crossMark




Bronchogenic carcinoma should be a topic of paramount importance to all who interpret chest radiographs because of its increasing incidence. For several decades the disease has been underestimated in the developing world. A prospective study was carried out on 52 patients (43 males, 9 females) with primary bronchogenic carcinoma at Oncology Teaching Hospital/Medical City-Baghdad from October 2016 to March 2017. All patients had standard plain chest radiographs (postero-anterior, and lateral views). Any abnormality detected was further studied with conventional tomography. The diagnosis was confirmed by histopathology examinations for all patients who were clinically evaluated by other methods of investigations. Most patients had more than one radiological feature which were mainly pulmonary masses, either hilar or peripheral or both at the same time. Other less common features were; mediastinal adenopathy (27%), atelactasis (25%) and pleural effusion (21%). Radiological signs that determine inoperability were evaluated together with other factors that were used as basic principles in the assessment of inoperability. From the total of fifty-two patients; 45 (86.5%) were inoperable radiologically and clinically, and also 4 patients (57%) out of the 7 who underwent thoracotomy were inoperable due to invasion and adhesion to the vessels and other vital structures. The chest radiograph is still important, cheap and available diagnostic procedure in lung cancer, and to decide further management.

Keywords: Bronchogenic carcinoma; Chest radiograph; Histopathology examinations; Incidence


Copyright © 2018 by The American Society for BioMedicine and BM-Publisher, Inc.

Article citationReferencesFull-Text/PDFFeedback
The citation data is computed by the following citation measuring services:

Cited by (CrossRef)
Google Scholar

  1. Iraqi cancer board. Iraqi cancer registry center. Institute of radiology and nuclear medicine. Ministry of Health; results of Iraqi cancer registry 2015.
  2. Elhassani NB. Bronchial carcinoma in Iraq. J Fac Med Baghdad 1987;37:46.
  3. Carter BW, Glisson BS, Truong MT, Erasmus JJ. Small cell lung carcinoma: staging, imaging, and treatment considerations. Radiographics 2014;34:1707.
  4. Silvestri GA, Gonzalez AV, Jantz MA, et al. Methods for staging non-small cell lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2013;143:e211S.
  5. Nickoloff EL, Lu ZF, Dutta AK, So JC. Radiation dose descriptors: BERT, COD, DAP, and other strange creatures. Radiographics 2008;28:1439.
  6. Wall BF, Hart D. Revised radiation doses for typical X-ray examinations. Report on a recent review of doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK by NRPB. National Radiological Protection Board. Br J Radiol 1997;70:437.
  7. Parry RA, Glaze SA, Archer BR. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. Typical patient radiation doses in diagnostic radiology. Radiographics 1999; 19:1289.
  8. Chou SH, Kicska GA, Pipavath SN, Reddy GP. Digital tomosynthesis of the chest: current and emerging applications. Radiographics 2014; 34:359.
  9.  Patz EF Jr, Erasmus JJ, McAdams HP, et al. Lung cancer staging and management: comparison of contrast-enhanced and nonenhanced helical CT of the thorax. Radiology 1999;212:56.
  10.  Hendee WR, O'Connor MK. Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology 2012; 264:312.
  11. Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4:272.
  12. Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Muller NL, Fleischner Society. Radiation exposure at chest CT: a statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15.
  13. Gámez C, Rosell R, Fernández A, et al. PET/CT fusion scan in lung cancer: current recommendations and innovations. J Thorac Oncol 2006; 1:74.
  14. Mattes MD, Moshchinsky AB, Ahsanuddin S, et al. Ratio of Lymph Node to Primary Tumor SUV on PET/CT Accurately Predicts Nodal Malignancy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2015 Jun 15.
  15. Mattes MD, Weber WA, Foster A, et al. A Predictive Model for Lymph Node Involvement with Malignancy on PET/CT in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2015; (8):1207-12.
  16. Nair VS, Gevaert O, Davidzon G, Napel S, Graves EE, Hoang CD, et al. Prognostic PET 18F-FDG uptake imaging features are associated with major oncogenomic alterations in patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res 2012;2(15):3725-34.
  17. Hellwig D, Baum RP, Kirsch C. FDG-PET, PET/CT and conventional nuclear medicine procedures in the evaluation of lung cancer: A systematic review. Nuklearmedizin 2009;48(1).
  18. Fried DV, Mawlawi O, Zhang L, et al. Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Prognostic Value of FDG PET Quantitative Imaging Features Combined with Clinical Prognostic Factors. Radiology 2015;142920.
  19. De Leyn P, Lardinois D, Van Schil PE, et al. ESTS guidelines for preoperative lymph node staging for non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;32:1-8.


For any technique error please contact us and will be response to sending purchase article by email.

Who Can Become a Reviewer?
Any expert in the article's research field can become a reviewer with American Journal of BioMedicine. Editors might ask you to look at a specific aspect of an article.

Find out more

Thank you for visiting American Journal of BioMedicine. * = Required fields

Error: Contact form not found.

Research Article
American Journal of BioMedicine Volume 6, Issue 8, pages 507-516
Received March 11, 2018; accepted July 28, 2018; published August 09, 2018

How to cite this article
Ahmed MA, Al-Hayali SM, Yousif NG. Radiographic manifestations of inoperable primary bronchogenic carcinoma. American Journal of BioMedicine 2018;6(8):507-516.

Case report outline
1. Abstract
2. Keywords
3. Introduction
4. Methods
5. Results
6. Discussion
7. References

Article metric