Henk Kramer1, Harry J M Groen. 1. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, University Hospital Groningen, The Netherlands. h.kramer@int.azg.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the current concepts in the mediastinal staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), evaluating traditional and modern staging modalities. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Staging of NSCLC includes the assessment of mediastinal lymph nodes. Traditionally, computed tomography (CT) and mediastinoscopy are used. Modern staging modalities include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) METHODS: Literature was searched with PubMed and SUMSearch for original, peer-reviewed, full-length articles. Studies were evaluated on inclusion criteria, sample size, and operating characteristics. Endpoints were accuracy, safety, and applicability of the staging methods. RESULTS: CT had moderate sensitivities and specificities. With few exceptions magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offered no advantages when compared with CT, against higher costs. PET was significantly more accurate than CT. Mediastinoscopy and its variants were widely used as gold standard, although meta-analyses were absent. Percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB) and transbronchial needle biopsy (TBNA) were moderately sensitive and specific. EUS-FNA had high sensitivity and specificity, is a safe and fast procedure, and is cost-effective. EUS-FNA evaluates largely a nonoverlapping mediastinal area compared with mediastinoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: PET has the highest accuracy in the mediastinal staging of NSCLC, but is not generally used yet. EUS-FNA has the potential to perform mediastinal tissue sampling more accurate than TBNA, PTNB, and mediastinoscopy, with fewer complications and costs. Although promising, EUS-FNA is still experimental. Mediastinoscopy is still considered as gold standard for mediastinal staging of NSCLC.
OBJECTIVE: To review the current concepts in the mediastinal staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), evaluating traditional and modern staging modalities. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Staging of NSCLC includes the assessment of mediastinal lymph nodes. Traditionally, computed tomography (CT) and mediastinoscopy are used. Modern staging modalities include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) METHODS: Literature was searched with PubMed and SUMSearch for original, peer-reviewed, full-length articles. Studies were evaluated on inclusion criteria, sample size, and operating characteristics. Endpoints were accuracy, safety, and applicability of the staging methods. RESULTS: CT had moderate sensitivities and specificities. With few exceptions magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offered no advantages when compared with CT, against higher costs. PET was significantly more accurate than CT. Mediastinoscopy and its variants were widely used as gold standard, although meta-analyses were absent. Percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB) and transbronchial needle biopsy (TBNA) were moderately sensitive and specific. EUS-FNA had high sensitivity and specificity, is a safe and fast procedure, and is cost-effective. EUS-FNA evaluates largely a nonoverlapping mediastinal area compared with mediastinoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: PET has the highest accuracy in the mediastinal staging of NSCLC, but is not generally used yet. EUS-FNA has the potential to perform mediastinal tissue sampling more accurate than TBNA, PTNB, and mediastinoscopy, with fewer complications and costs. Although promising, EUS-FNA is still experimental. Mediastinoscopy is still considered as gold standard for mediastinal staging of NSCLC.
Authors: J Freixinet Gilart; P G García; F R de Castro; P R Suárez; N S Rodríguez; A V de Ugarte Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: R M Pieterman; J W van Putten; J J Meuzelaar; E L Mooyaart; W Vaalburg; G H Koëter; V Fidler; J Pruim; H J Groen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-07-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Fritscher-Ravens; P V Sriram; C Bobrowski; A Pforte; T Topalidis; C Krause; S Jaeckle; F Thonke; N Soehendra Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Johannes Kirchner; Esther Maria Kirchner; Jan Peter Goltz; Vivian-Wilma Lorenz; Ralph Kickuth Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-04-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fu Yang; Haiquan Chen; Jiaqing Xiang; Yawei Zhang; Jianhua Zhou; Hong Hu; Jie Zhang; Xiaoyang Luo Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 4.430