| Literature DB >> 32606494 |
Inderpaul Singh Sehgal1, Nalini Gupta2, Sahajal Dhooria1, Ashutosh Nath Aggarwal1, Karan Madan3, Deepali Jain4, Parikshaa Gupta2, Neha Kawatra Madan5, Arvind Rajwanshi2, Ritesh Agarwal1.
Abstract
Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) is presently the preferred modality for sampling mediastinal lymph nodes. There is an unmet need for standardization of processing and reporting of cytology specimens obtained by EBUS-TBNA. The manuscript is a state-of-the-art review on the technical aspects of processing and reporting of EBUS-TBNA specimens. A literature search was conducted using the PubMed database, and the available evidence was discussed among the authors. The evidence suggests that at least one air-dried and one alcohol-fixed slide should be prepared from each lymph node pass. The remaining material should be utilized for microbiological analysis (in saline) and cell block preparation (10% formalin or other solutions). Wherever available, rapid-onsite evaluation should be performed to assess the adequacy of the sample and guide the need for additional material. The lymph node aspirate should also be collected in Roswell Park Memorial Institute solution in cases where lymphoma is under consideration. The use of liquid-based cytology provides good quality specimens that are free from blood and air-drying artifacts and can be used wherever available. Sample adequacy and the diagnostic category should be furnished separately in the cytology report. Copyright:Entities:
Keywords: Cell block; EBUS; endoluminal ultrasound; liquid-based cytology; rapid onsite evaluation; ultrasound
Year: 2020 PMID: 32606494 PMCID: PMC7315917 DOI: 10.4103/JOC.JOC_100_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cytol ISSN: 0970-9371 Impact factor: 1.000
Categorization of the level of evidence
| Classification of level of evidence | |
|---|---|
| Level I | High-quality evidence supported by findings from well-executed randomized controlled trials, or unequivocal evidence from well conducted observational studies with strong effects |
| Level II | Moderate-quality evidence from randomized trials or from several observational studies with some limitations (inconsistency, indirectness, flaws in conduct, reporting bias, imprecise estimates, small sample size, or others) |
| Level III | Low-quality evidence from observational studies or from controlled trials with serious limitations |
| Useful Practice Point (UPP) | Not supported by sufficient evidence; however, a consensus reached by the working group, based on clinical experience and expertise |
Adapted from Agarwal et al.[20]
Adequacy criteria for rapid-onsite cytologic evaluation
| For cytology |
| >40 lymphocytes/hpf or the presence of germinal center or anthracotic pigment-laden macrophages[ |
| >5 fields with at least 100 lymphocytes per low power field (×100) in a smear plus <2 groups of bronchial cells per low-power field (×100) or presence of germinal fragments[ |
| Germinal center fragments, >5 fields at×100 magnification with at least 100 lymphocytes per field and <2 groups of contaminating bronchial cells per field[ |
| A sequential approach comprising four criteria (core size ≥2 cm, presence of malignant cells, presence of microscopic anthracotic pigments, and mean lymphocyte density ≥40 cells/10 fields (×40)[ |
| For molecular testing |
| A smear with greater than 40% for real-time polymerase chain reaction[ |
| A minimum of 100 viable tumor cells are required on the stained slide from the cell block. to be tested for PD-L1[ |
A suggested template for cytological reporting of lymph node aspirate obtained using endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspirate
| Name | Age | Gender |
|---|---|---|
| Cytology report | ||
| Adequate | ||
| For reporting | ||
| Germinal center | Yes/No | |
| at least 100 lymphocytes per field at×100 magnification | Yes/No | |
| <2 groups of contaminating bronchial cells per field | Yes/No | |
| For molecular testing | ||
| >100 tumor cells | Yes/No | |
| Proportion of tumor cells ≥20% | Yes/No | |
| Inadequate | ||
| Diagnostic category | ||
| Diagnostic | ||
| Granulomatous inflammation (with or without necrosis) | ||
| Atypical | ||
| Suspicious of malignancy | ||
| Malignancy (small cell cancer, adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma or others) | ||
| Others (specify) | ||
| Nondiagnostic | ||
| Ancillary methods used | Report | |
| Cell block | ||
| LBC | ||
| Immunocytochemistry | ||
| Flow cytometry | ||
| FISH | ||
| Special stains | ||
| Others (cell scraping) | ||
| Molecular testing used | ||
| Descriptive report | ||
| Final diagnosis |
Figure 1Suggested approach for specimen processing of aspirate obtained during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration