BACKGROUND: The optimal method for specimen preparation of endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is still controversial. This study aims to compare several techniques available for EBUS-TBNA specimen acquisition and processing, in order to identify the best performing technique. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 199 consecutive patients [male, 73%; median age, 64 years (IQR: 52-74 years)] undergoing EBUS-TBNA at our institution from 2012 through 2014 for diagnosis of hilar-mediastinal lymph node enlargement suspect of neoplastic (n=139) or granulomatous (n=60) disease. All procedures were performed by two experienced bronchoscopists, under conscious sedation and local anaesthesia, using 21/22-Gauge (G) needle, without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Five specimen-processing techniques were used: cytology slides in 42 cases (21%); cell-block in 25 (13%); core-tissue in 60 (30%); combination of cytology slides and core-tissue in 51 (26%); combination of cytology slides and cell-block in 21 (10%). To assess the diagnostic accuracy of each tissue-processing technique we compared the EBUS-TBNA results to those obtained with surgical lymphadenectomy, or 1-year follow-up in non-operated patients. RESULTS: Diagnostic yield, accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) were as follows. Cytology slides: 81%, 80%, 0.90; cell-block: 48%, 33%, 0.67; core-tissue: 87%, 99%, 0.96; cytology slides + core-tissue: 80%, 100%, 1.00; cytology slides + cell-block: 86%, 100%, 1.00. Cytology slides and core-tissue method showed non-significantly different diagnostic yield (P=0.435) and AUC (P=0.152). CONCLUSIONS: In our single-institution experience, cytology slides and core-tissue preparations demonstrated high and similar diagnostic performance. Cytology slides combination with core-tissue or cell-block showed the highest performance, however these combination methods were more resource-consuming.
BACKGROUND: The optimal method for specimen preparation of endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is still controversial. This study aims to compare several techniques available for EBUS-TBNA specimen acquisition and processing, in order to identify the best performing technique. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 199 consecutive patients [male, 73%; median age, 64 years (IQR: 52-74 years)] undergoing EBUS-TBNA at our institution from 2012 through 2014 for diagnosis of hilar-mediastinal lymph node enlargement suspect of neoplastic (n=139) or granulomatous (n=60) disease. All procedures were performed by two experienced bronchoscopists, under conscious sedation and local anaesthesia, using 21/22-Gauge (G) needle, without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Five specimen-processing techniques were used: cytology slides in 42 cases (21%); cell-block in 25 (13%); core-tissue in 60 (30%); combination of cytology slides and core-tissue in 51 (26%); combination of cytology slides and cell-block in 21 (10%). To assess the diagnostic accuracy of each tissue-processing technique we compared the EBUS-TBNA results to those obtained with surgical lymphadenectomy, or 1-year follow-up in non-operated patients. RESULTS: Diagnostic yield, accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) were as follows. Cytology slides: 81%, 80%, 0.90; cell-block: 48%, 33%, 0.67; core-tissue: 87%, 99%, 0.96; cytology slides + core-tissue: 80%, 100%, 1.00; cytology slides + cell-block: 86%, 100%, 1.00. Cytology slides and core-tissue method showed non-significantly different diagnostic yield (P=0.435) and AUC (P=0.152). CONCLUSIONS: In our single-institution experience, cytology slides and core-tissue preparations demonstrated high and similar diagnostic performance. Cytology slides combination with core-tissue or cell-block showed the highest performance, however these combination methods were more resource-consuming.
Authors: Marcus P Kennedy; Carlos A Jimenez; Rodolfo C Morice; Mona Sarkiss; Xiudong Lei; David Rice; Georgie A Eapen Journal: J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol Date: 2010-07
Authors: Erik H F M van der Heijden; Roberto F Casal; Rocco Trisolini; Daniel P Steinfort; Bin Hwangbo; Takahiro Nakajima; Birgit Guldhammer-Skov; Giulio Rossi; Maurizio Ferretti; Felix F J Herth; Rex Yung; Mark Krasnik Journal: Respiration Date: 2014-11-05 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: Daniel P Steinfort; Prudence A Russell; Alpha Tsui; Gordon White; Gavin Wright; Louis B Irving Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Jennifer W Toth; Konstantin Zubelevitskiy; Jennifer A Strow; Jussuf T Kaifi; Allen R Kunselman; Michael F Reed Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 4.330
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: José Sanz-Santos; Pere Serra; Felipe Andreo; Maria Llatjós; Eva Castellà; Eduard Monsó Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 4.430
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: Nikhil Jagan; Carolina A Landeen; Douglas R Moore; Adam D Highley; Ryan W Walters; Zachary S DePew Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.895