Sahajal Dhooria1, Ashutosh N Aggarwal1, Dheeraj Gupta1, Digambar Behera1, Ritesh Agarwal2. 1. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 2. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. agarwal.ritesh@live.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of endoscopic ultrasound with bronchoscope-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-B-FNA) has been described in the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Herein, we conduct a meta-analysis to estimate the overall diagnostic yield and safety of EUS-B-FNA combined with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. METHODS: The PubMed and EmBase databases were searched for studies reporting the outcomes of EUS-B-FNA in diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. The study quality was assessed using the QualSyst tool. The yield of EBUS-TBNA alone and the combined procedure (EBUS-TBNA and EUS-B-FNA) were analyzed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio for each study, and pooling the study results using a random effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed for individual outcomes. The additional diagnostic gain of EUS-B-FNA over EBUS-TBNA was calculated using proportion meta-analysis. RESULTS: Our search yielded 10 studies (1,080 subjects with mediastinal lymphadenopathy). The sensitivity of the combined procedure was significantly higher than EBUS-TBNA alone (91% vs 80%, P = .004), in staging of lung cancer (4 studies, 465 subjects). The additional diagnostic gain of EUS-B-FNA over EBUS-TBNA was 7.6% in the diagnosis of mediastinal adenopathy. No serious complication of EUS-B-FNA procedure was reported. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity was present without any evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Combining EBUS-TBNA and EUS-B-FNA is an effective and safe method, superior to EBUS-TBNA alone, in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Good quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the results of this systematic review.
BACKGROUND: The use of endoscopic ultrasound with bronchoscope-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-B-FNA) has been described in the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Herein, we conduct a meta-analysis to estimate the overall diagnostic yield and safety of EUS-B-FNA combined with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. METHODS: The PubMed and EmBase databases were searched for studies reporting the outcomes of EUS-B-FNA in diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. The study quality was assessed using the QualSyst tool. The yield of EBUS-TBNA alone and the combined procedure (EBUS-TBNA and EUS-B-FNA) were analyzed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio for each study, and pooling the study results using a random effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed for individual outcomes. The additional diagnostic gain of EUS-B-FNA over EBUS-TBNA was calculated using proportion meta-analysis. RESULTS: Our search yielded 10 studies (1,080 subjects with mediastinal lymphadenopathy). The sensitivity of the combined procedure was significantly higher than EBUS-TBNA alone (91% vs 80%, P = .004), in staging of lung cancer (4 studies, 465 subjects). The additional diagnostic gain of EUS-B-FNA over EBUS-TBNA was 7.6% in the diagnosis of mediastinal adenopathy. No serious complication of EUS-B-FNA procedure was reported. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity was present without any evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Combining EBUS-TBNA and EUS-B-FNA is an effective and safe method, superior to EBUS-TBNA alone, in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Good quality randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the results of this systematic review.
Authors: Christian Jenssen; Jouke Tabe Annema; Paul Clementsen; Xin-Wu Cui; Mathias Maximilian Borst; Christoph Frank Dietrich Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Nicola Rotolo; Andrea Imperatori; Mario Nosotti; Luigi Santambrogio; Alessandro Palleschi; Lorenzo Dominioni; Giorgio Crosta; Pierfranco Foccoli; Gianluca Pariscenti; Eliseo Passera; Luigi Bortolotti; Giovanni Falezza; Maurizio Infante; Elisa Daffrè; Maria Cattoni; Lorenzo Rosso Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Maja Guberina; Kaid Darwiche; Hubertus Hautzel; Till Ploenes; Christoph Pöttgen; Nika Guberina; Ken Herrmann; Lale Umutlu; Axel Wetter; Dirk Theegarten; Clemens Aigner; Wilfried Ernst Erich Eberhardt; Martin Schuler; Rüdiger Karpf-Wissel; Martin Stuschke Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 9.236