OBJECTIVES: In patients with lung cancer, endosonography has emerged as a minimally invasive method to obtain cytological proof of mediastinal lymph nodes, suspicious for metastases on imaging. In case of a negative result, it is currently recommended that a cervical mediastinoscopy be performed additionally. However, in daily practice, a second procedure is often regarded superfluous. The goal of our study was to assess the additional value of a cervical mediastinoscopy, after a negative result of endosonography, in routine clinical practice. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, the records of 147 consecutive patients with an indication for mediastinal lymph node staging and a negative result of endosonography were analysed. As a subsequent procedure, 124 patients underwent a cervical mediastinoscopy and 23 patients were scheduled for an intended curative resection directly. The negative predictive value (NPV) for both diagnostic procedures was determined, as well as the number of patients who needed to undergo a mediastinoscopy to find one false-negative result of endosonography (number needed to treat (NNT)). Clinical data of patients with a false-negative endosonography were analysed. RESULTS: When using cervical mediastinoscopy as the gold standard, the NPV for endosonography was 88.7%, resulting in a NNT of 8.8 patients. For patients with fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography positive mediastinal lymph nodes, the NNT was 6.1. Overall, a futile thoracotomy could be prevented in 50% of patients by an additional mediastinoscopy. A representative lymph node aspirate, containing adequate numbers of lymphocytes, did not exclude metastases. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a high probability of mediastinal metastases, based on imaging, and negative endosonography, cervical mediastinoscopy should not be omitted, not even when the aspirate seems representative.
OBJECTIVES: In patients with lung cancer, endosonography has emerged as a minimally invasive method to obtain cytological proof of mediastinal lymph nodes, suspicious for metastases on imaging. In case of a negative result, it is currently recommended that a cervical mediastinoscopy be performed additionally. However, in daily practice, a second procedure is often regarded superfluous. The goal of our study was to assess the additional value of a cervical mediastinoscopy, after a negative result of endosonography, in routine clinical practice. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, the records of 147 consecutive patients with an indication for mediastinal lymph node staging and a negative result of endosonography were analysed. As a subsequent procedure, 124 patients underwent a cervical mediastinoscopy and 23 patients were scheduled for an intended curative resection directly. The negative predictive value (NPV) for both diagnostic procedures was determined, as well as the number of patients who needed to undergo a mediastinoscopy to find one false-negative result of endosonography (number needed to treat (NNT)). Clinical data of patients with a false-negative endosonography were analysed. RESULTS: When using cervical mediastinoscopy as the gold standard, the NPV for endosonography was 88.7%, resulting in a NNT of 8.8 patients. For patients with fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography positive mediastinal lymph nodes, the NNT was 6.1. Overall, a futile thoracotomy could be prevented in 50% of patients by an additional mediastinoscopy. A representative lymph node aspirate, containing adequate numbers of lymphocytes, did not exclude metastases. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a high probability of mediastinal metastases, based on imaging, and negative endosonography, cervical mediastinoscopy should not be omitted, not even when the aspirate seems representative.
Authors: Sebastian A Defranchi; Eric S Edell; Craig E Daniels; Udaya B S Prakash; Karen L Swanson; James P Utz; Mark S Allen; Stephen D Cassivi; Claude Deschamps; Francis C Nichols; K Robert Shen; Dennis A Wigle Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Gerard A Silvestri; Michael K Gould; Mitchell L Margolis; Lynn T Tanoue; Douglas McCrory; Eric Toloza; Frank Detterbeck Journal: Chest Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jouke T Annema; Jan P van Meerbeeck; Robert C Rintoul; Christophe Dooms; Ellen Deschepper; Olaf M Dekkers; Paul De Leyn; Jerry Braun; Nicholas R Carroll; Marleen Praet; Frederick de Ryck; Johan Vansteenkiste; Frank Vermassen; Michel I Versteegh; Maud Veseliç; Andrew G Nicholson; Klaus F Rabe; Kurt G Tournoy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gonzalo Labarca; Carlos Aravena; Francisco Ortega; Alex Arenas; Adnan Majid; Erik Folch; Hiren J Mehta; Michael A Jantz; Sebastian Fernandez-Bussy Journal: Pulm Med Date: 2016-10-13
Authors: M Serra Fortuny; M Gallego; Ll Berna; C Montón; L Vigil; M J Masdeu; A Fernández-Villar; M I Botana; R Cordovilla; R García-Luján; E Cases; E Monsó Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Jelle E Bousema; Fieke Hoeijmakers; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Jouke T Annema; Frank J C van den Broek; M Elske van den Akker-van Marle Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Jelle E Bousema; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Nicole E Papen-Botterhuis; Hermien W Schreurs; Jos G Maessen; Erik H van der Heijden; Willem H Steup; Jerry Braun; Valentin J J M Noyez; Fieke Hoeijmakers; Naomi Beck; Martijn van Dorp; Niels J M Claessens; Birgitta I Hiddinga; Johannes M A Daniels; David J Heineman; Harmen R Zandbergen; Ad F T M Verhagen; Paul E van Schil; Jouke T Annema; Frank J C van den Broek Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Bastiaan E Steunenberg; Tom P A Beddows; Hans G W De Groot; Ninos Ayez; Cor Van Der Leest; Joachim G J V Aerts; Eelco J Veen Journal: Thorac Cancer Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 3.500