Long Jiang1, Weizhe Huang2, Jun Liu1, Kassem Harris3, Lonny Yarmus4, Wenlong Shao1, Hanzhang Chen1, Wenhua Liang1, Jianxing He5. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery/Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China. 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Medical College of Shantou University, Shantou, Guangdong, China. 3. Interventional Pulmonology Section, Pulmonary Critical Care Division, Department of Medicine, Westchester Medical Center, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY. 4. Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 5. Department of Thoracic Surgery/Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China; State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: drhe_jianxing@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mediastinal restaging after induction treatment is still a difficult and controversial issue. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for restaging the mediastinum after induction treatment in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: Embase and PubMed databases were searched from conception to March 2019. Data from relevant studies were analyzed to assess sensitivity and specificity of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration, and to fit the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies consisting of 558 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All patients were restaged by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration, or both. Negative results were confirmed by subsequent surgical approaches. There were no complications reported during any endosonography approaches reviewed. The pooled sensitivities of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration were 65% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52-76) and 73% (95% CI, 52-87), respectively, and specificities were 99% (95% CI, 78-100) and 99% (95% CI, 90-100), respectively. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.88) for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Moreover, for patients who received chemotherapy alone, the pooled sensitivity of endosonography with lymph node sampling for restaging was 66% (95% CI, 56-75), and specificity was 100% (95% CI, 34-100); for patients who received chemoradiotherapy, the results seemed similar with a sensitivity of 77% (95% CI, 47-92) and specificity of 99% (95% CI, 48-100). CONCLUSIONS: Endosonography with lymph node sampling is an accurate and safe technique for mediastinal restaging of lung cancer.
BACKGROUND: Mediastinal restaging after induction treatment is still a difficult and controversial issue. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for restaging the mediastinum after induction treatment in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: Embase and PubMed databases were searched from conception to March 2019. Data from relevant studies were analyzed to assess sensitivity and specificity of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration, and to fit the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies consisting of 558 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All patients were restaged by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration, or both. Negative results were confirmed by subsequent surgical approaches. There were no complications reported during any endosonography approaches reviewed. The pooled sensitivities of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration were 65% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52-76) and 73% (95% CI, 52-87), respectively, and specificities were 99% (95% CI, 78-100) and 99% (95% CI, 90-100), respectively. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.88) for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Moreover, for patients who received chemotherapy alone, the pooled sensitivity of endosonography with lymph node sampling for restaging was 66% (95% CI, 56-75), and specificity was 100% (95% CI, 34-100); for patients who received chemoradiotherapy, the results seemed similar with a sensitivity of 77% (95% CI, 47-92) and specificity of 99% (95% CI, 48-100). CONCLUSIONS: Endosonography with lymph node sampling is an accurate and safe technique for mediastinal restaging of lung cancer.