The harm associated with lung cancer treatment include perioperative morbidity and mortality and therapy-induced toxicities in various organs, including the heart and lungs. Optimal treatment therefore entails a need for risk assessment to weigh the probabilities of benefits versus harm. Exercise testing offers an opportunity to evaluate a patient's physical fitness/exercise capacity objectively. In lung cancer, it is most often used to risk-stratify patients undergoing evaluation for lung cancer resection. In recent years, its use outside this context has been described, including in nonsurgical candidates and lung cancer survivors. In this article we review the physiology of exercise testing and lung cancer. Then, we assess the utility of exercise testing in patients with lung cancer in four contexts (preoperative evaluation for lung cancer resection, after lung cancer resection, lung cancer prognosis, and assessment of efficiency of exercise training programs) after systematically identifying original studies involving the most common forms of exercise tests in this patient population: laboratory cardiopulmonary exercise testing and simple field testing with the 6-minute walk test, shuttle walk test, and/or stair-climbing test. Lastly, we propose a conceptual framework for risk assessment of patients with lung cancer who are being considered for therapy and identify areas for further studies in this patient population.

Background. The role of urgent colonoscopy in lower gastro-intestinal bleeding (LGIB) remains controversial. Over the last two decades, a number of studies have indicated that urgent colonoscopy may facilitate the identification and treatment of bleeding lesions; however, studies comparing this approach to elective colonoscopy for LGIB are limited.Aims. To determine the utility and assess the outcome of urgent colonoscopy as the initial test for patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with acute LGIB.Methods. Consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at our institution for the initial evaluation of acute LGIB between January 2011 and January 2012 were analysed retrospectively. Patients were grouped into urgent vs. elective colonoscopy, depending on the timing of colonoscopy after admission to the ICU. Urgent colonoscopy was defined as being performed within 24 hours of admission and those performed later than 24 hours were considered elective. Outcomes included length of hospital stay, early re-bleeding rates, and the need for additional diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with increased transfusion requirements.Results. Fifty-seven patients underwent colonoscopy for the evaluation of suspected LGIB, 24 of which were urgent. There was no significant difference in patient demographics, co-morbidities, or medications between the two groups. Patients who underwent urgent colonoscopy were more likely to present with hemodynamic instability (P = 0.019) and require blood transfusions (P = 0.003). No significant differences in length of hospital stay, re-bleeding rates, or the need for additional diagnostic or therapeutic interventions were found. Patients requiring blood transfusions (n = 27) were more likely to be female (P = 0.016) and diabetics (P = 0.015). Fourteen patients re-bled at a median of 2 days after index colonoscopy. Those with hemodynamic instability were more likely to re-bleed [HR 3.8 (CI 1.06–13.7)], undergo angiography [HR 9.8 (CI 1.8–54.1)], require surgery [HR 13.5 (CI 3.2–56.5)], and had an increased length of hospital stay [HR 1.1 (1.05–1.2)].Conclusion: The use of urgent colonoscopy, as an initial approach to investigate acute LGIB, did not result in significant differences in length of ICU stay, re-bleeding rates, the need for additional diagnostic or therapeutic interventions, or 30-day mortality compared with elective colonoscopy. In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, patients with hemodynamic instability were more likely to re-bleed after index colonoscopy, to require additional interventions (angiography or surgery) and had increased length of hospital stay.

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a commonly used procedure in the evaluation of lung disease as it allows for sampling of the lower respiratory tract. In many circumstances, BAL differential cell counts have been reported to be typical of specific lung disorders. In addition, more specific diagnostic tests including molecular assays such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, special cytopathologic stains, or particular microscopic findings have been described as part of BAL fluid analysis. This review focuses on common cellular and molecular findings of BAL in a wide range of lung diseases.Since the performance of the first lung irrigation in 1927, BAL has become a common and important diagnostic tool. While some pulmonary disorders have a highly characteristic signature of BAL findings, BAL results alone often lack specificity and require interpretation along with other clinical and radiographic details. Development of new diagnostic assays is certain to reinforce the utility of BAL in the future. Our review of the BAL literature is intended to serve as a resource to assist clinicians in the care of patients with lung disorders.