Emily Hopkins1, David Moffat2, Ian Parkinson3, Peter Robinson4, Hubertus Jersmann1, Brendan Dougherty4, Mohammed I Birader4, Kate Francis2, Phan Nguyen1. 1. The Department of Thoracic Medicine, The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide 5000, Australia;; The University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5000, Australia. 2. The Department of Surgical Pathology/Cytopathology, SA Pathology, SA 5000, Australia. 3. The University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5000, Australia;; The Department of Anatomical Pathology, SA Pathology, SA 5000, Australia. 4. The Department of Thoracic Medicine, The Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide 5000, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid on site examination (ROSE) is encouraged at endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needles aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) to improve diagnostic yield. Due to new therapeutic options in lung cancer, it is not sufficient to merely distinguish between non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) distinction is now standard practice, as well as additional molecular testing where clinically indicated. We investigated the diagnostic yield of on-site smears vs. cell block and the provision of cellular material for ancillary testing at our centre. METHODS: A retrospective audit of all EBUS-TBNA procedures performed until July 2012 was undertaken. Diagnostic yield on smears versus cell block was recorded. Cell blocks were reviewed by an experienced pathologist to determine diagnostic accuracy and whether IHC and molecular testing were possible. RESULTS: In total, 234 procedures were recorded with 101 (43.2%) malignant cases, 107 (45.7%) benign cases and an initial 26/234 (11.1%) insufficient for diagnosis of which 11/234 (4.7%) were false negatives for malignancy after further follow up. The average number of passes was 4.5. For malignancies, smear diagnosis was possible in 95% (96/101) of cases and cell block diagnosis in 93.5% (87/93) of cases. There was sufficient material for IHC in 97.7% (85/87) of malignant cases. In 79.3% (69/87) of NSCLCs molecular testing for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation analysis was theoretically possible on samples obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Cell blocks are not inferior to smears for diagnostic accuracy and provide sufficient samples for histology. However, ROSE assists the physician on how best to manage samples for ancillary testing.
BACKGROUND: Rapid on site examination (ROSE) is encouraged at endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needles aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) to improve diagnostic yield. Due to new therapeutic options in lung cancer, it is not sufficient to merely distinguish between non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) distinction is now standard practice, as well as additional molecular testing where clinically indicated. We investigated the diagnostic yield of on-site smears vs. cell block and the provision of cellular material for ancillary testing at our centre. METHODS: A retrospective audit of all EBUS-TBNA procedures performed until July 2012 was undertaken. Diagnostic yield on smears versus cell block was recorded. Cell blocks were reviewed by an experienced pathologist to determine diagnostic accuracy and whether IHC and molecular testing were possible. RESULTS: In total, 234 procedures were recorded with 101 (43.2%) malignant cases, 107 (45.7%) benign cases and an initial 26/234 (11.1%) insufficient for diagnosis of which 11/234 (4.7%) were false negatives for malignancy after further follow up. The average number of passes was 4.5. For malignancies, smear diagnosis was possible in 95% (96/101) of cases and cell block diagnosis in 93.5% (87/93) of cases. There was sufficient material for IHC in 97.7% (85/87) of malignant cases. In 79.3% (69/87) of NSCLCs molecular testing for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation analysis was theoretically possible on samples obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Cell blocks are not inferior to smears for diagnostic accuracy and provide sufficient samples for histology. However, ROSE assists the physician on how best to manage samples for ancillary testing.
Authors: Olga C J Schuurbiers; Monika G Looijen-Salamon; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Henricus F M van der Heijden Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Yinin Hu; Varun Puri; Traves D Crabtree; Daniel Kreisel; Alexander S Krupnick; Alexander G Patterson; Bryan F Meyers Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: P Bruno; A Ricci; M C Esposito; D Scozzi; L Tabbì; B Sposato; C Falasca; E Giarnieri; M R Giovagnoli; S Mariotta Journal: Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.507
Authors: Neal Navani; James M Brown; Matthew Nankivell; Ian Woolhouse; Richard N Harrison; Vandana Jeebun; Mohammed Munavvar; Benjamin J Ng; Doris M Rassl; Mary Falzon; Gabrijela Kocjan; Robert C Rintoul; Andrew G Nicholson; Sam M Janes Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: George Santis; Roger Angell; Guillermina Nickless; Alison Quinn; Amanda Herbert; Paul Cane; James Spicer; Ronan Breen; Emma McLean; Khalid Tobal Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Simon R Turner; Darren Buonocore; Patrice Desmeules; Natasha Rekhtman; Snjezana Dogan; Oscar Lin; Maria E Arcila; David R Jones; James Huang Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Elliot B Levy; Maria I Fiel; Stanley R Hamilton; David E Kleiner; Shannon J McCall; Peter Schirmacher; William Travis; Michael D Kuo; Robert D Suh; Alda L Tam; Shaheen U Islam; Katherine Ferry-Galow; Rebecca A Enos; James H Doroshow; Hala R Makhlouf Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christina R Bellinger; Deepankar Sharma; Travis Dotson; Jimmy Ruiz; Graham Parks; Edward F Haponik Journal: South Med J Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 0.954
Authors: Paul Zarogoulidis; Mina Gaga; Haidong Huang; Kaid Darwiche; Aggeliki Rapti; Wolfgang Hohenforst-Schmidt Journal: Clin Transl Med Date: 2017-01-18