J C Kuijvenhoven1, V Livi2, L Morandi3, A Cancellieri4, J T Annema5, R Trisolini2. 1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center (AMC), Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Interventional Pulmonology Unit, Policlinico S. Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy. 3. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center (AMC), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Respiratory Diseases Clinic, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. 4. Department of Pathology, Policlinico S. Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy. 5. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center (AMC), Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.t.annema@amsterdamumc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Tissue acquisition of lung tumors is crucial for diagnostic and treatment purposes. In patients with centrally located lung tumors without endobronchial abnormalities the yield of conventional bronchoscopy is poor. Objective of this study was to assess diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA in patients with lung tumors, located near or adjacent to the major airways. METHODS: International multicenter retrospective analysis (2013-2018) of linear EBUS databases in Bologna, Italy and Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Patients with a centrally-located lung tumor without endobronchial abnormalities who underwent lung tumor search with linear EBUS were included. Diagnostic yield, feasibility of EBUS guided tumor sampling, complication rate, adequacy of the aspirates for mutational analysis, and assessment of mediastinal/vascular invasion (T4) were evaluated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Real-time EBUS-TBNA diagnostic yield to sample centrally located intrapulmonary tumor was 83% (136/163) and it was independent of tumor location (paratracheal, mainstem, lobar, segmental bronchus). The feasibility to sample the lung tumor was 89% (145/163). In 4 cases the tumor was not found with EBUS. In the other 14 cases, tumor sampling was not performed due to: loss of the echo window after needle insertion [n = 3], interposition of a large vessel [n = 7], switch to radial EBUS [n = 1], switch and sampling through EUS or EUS-B [n = 3]. No major complications occurred. Mutational analysis was successful in 54/63 (86%) of samples. Using surgery as reference standard, EBUS proved more reliable than CT (24/24, 100% versus 22/24, 91.7%, respectively) in the assessment of mediastinal/vascular tumor invasion (T4 status). IN CONCLUSION: Lung tumors presenting without endobronchial abnormalities and located adjacent to the major airways can be safely sampled by EBUS-TBNA resulting in high diagnostic yield irrespective of tumor location. Successful molecular profiling and reliable assessment of mediastinal/vascular invasion (T4) in patients with advanced disease provide additional value to EBUS procedures in the setting of centrally-located lung lesions.
OBJECTIVES: Tissue acquisition of lung tumors is crucial for diagnostic and treatment purposes. In patients with centrally located lung tumors without endobronchial abnormalities the yield of conventional bronchoscopy is poor. Objective of this study was to assess diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA in patients with lung tumors, located near or adjacent to the major airways. METHODS: International multicenter retrospective analysis (2013-2018) of linear EBUS databases in Bologna, Italy and Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Patients with a centrally-located lung tumor without endobronchial abnormalities who underwent lung tumor search with linear EBUS were included. Diagnostic yield, feasibility of EBUS guided tumor sampling, complication rate, adequacy of the aspirates for mutational analysis, and assessment of mediastinal/vascular invasion (T4) were evaluated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Real-time EBUS-TBNA diagnostic yield to sample centrally located intrapulmonary tumor was 83% (136/163) and it was independent of tumor location (paratracheal, mainstem, lobar, segmental bronchus). The feasibility to sample the lung tumor was 89% (145/163). In 4 cases the tumor was not found with EBUS. In the other 14 cases, tumor sampling was not performed due to: loss of the echo window after needle insertion [n = 3], interposition of a large vessel [n = 7], switch to radial EBUS [n = 1], switch and sampling through EUS or EUS-B [n = 3]. No major complications occurred. Mutational analysis was successful in 54/63 (86%) of samples. Using surgery as reference standard, EBUS proved more reliable than CT (24/24, 100% versus 22/24, 91.7%, respectively) in the assessment of mediastinal/vascular tumor invasion (T4 status). IN CONCLUSION:Lung tumors presenting without endobronchial abnormalities and located adjacent to the major airways can be safely sampled by EBUS-TBNA resulting in high diagnostic yield irrespective of tumor location. Successful molecular profiling and reliable assessment of mediastinal/vascular invasion (T4) in patients with advanced disease provide additional value to EBUS procedures in the setting of centrally-located lung lesions.