P76 Is a normal CT thorax sufficient to exclude thoracic malignancy in patients referred to fast-track clinic with haemoptysis? – Data from eight years of referrals to a large NHS teaching hospital

• DOI: 10.1136/thorax-2019-btsabstracts2019.219
• Publication Date: 2019-11-13T11:46:59Z
• Authors: JA Quinn; WL Chia; RS Raju; MEJ Callister; MPT Kennedy
• Keywords: Thorax (insect anatomy)

<h3>Introduction and objectives</h3> Unexplained haemoptysis is a red-flag symptom prompting CT imaging to exclude lung cancer. Patients with normal scans often undergo bronchoscopy despite evidence suggesting the yield minimal.¹ We sought determine if thorax was sufficient diagnosis of thoracic malignancy. <h3>Methods</h3> retrospectively analysed patients referred our fast-track service between 2008–2016 identified 834 presenting haemoptysis, including 370 from previous dataset.² collected data on demographics, smoking history, upper airway symptoms, reviewed radiology reports, where performed. All were followed-up for at least two years. determined whether diagnosed cancer time referral or during follow-up (after 1 year). <h3>Results</h3> grouped according results. results categorised as normal, benign findings, probable not In 403 thorax, 46 underwent bronchoscopy. One patient, symptoms that warranted ENT referral, found have pharyngeal No other within one year; 4 later dates (intervals 636–1379 days initial CT). 304 CT, 69 patient reported having an endobronchial abnormality, likely secretions, year. date (interval 774 days). Nodule surveillance led in further 7 patients, initially group. 44 discharged following chest X-ray, no cancers detected follow-up. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Intrathoracic malignancy adequately excluded showing changes. Clinicians should enquire about airways low threshold context abnormalities haemoptysis. Rates period are consistent new rates high risk patients. <h3>References</h3> DOI:10.1183/1393003.congress-2017.PA4274 DOI:10.1016/S0169–5002(15)50044–5