| Literature DB >> 35330451 |
Ying-Yi Chen1,2, Hsin-Ya Huang3, Chi-Yi Lin4, Kuan-Liang Chen5, Tsai-Wang Huang1,2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to verify the predictors of the diagnostic accuracy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Entities:
Keywords: endobronchial ultrasound; non-small cell lung cancer; rapid on-site evaluation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35330451 PMCID: PMC8952648 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12030451
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Figure 1The confusion matrix of NSCLC patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA.
Characteristics of non-small cell lung cancer patients with malignant cells involved in mediastinal lymph node by endobronchial ultrasound with trans-bronchial needle biopsy.
| Correct Diagnosis of ROSE | Incorrect Diagnosis of ROSE | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 65.5 ± 1.69 | 65.5 ± 2.38 | 1 |
| Gender | 0.678 | ||
| Male | 28 (66.67) | 13 (72.22) | |
| Female | 14 (33.33) | 5 (27.78) | |
| Smoking | 0.78 | ||
| Yes | 24 (57.14) | 11 (61.11) | |
| No | 18 (42.86) | 7 (38.89) | |
| Histology | 0.335 | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 28 (66.67) | 5 (27.78) | |
| SCC | 7 (16.67) | 3 (16.67) | |
| PDA | 5 (11.9) | 4 (22.22) | |
| Clinical stage | 0.875 | ||
| IA | 1 (2.38) | 0 | |
| IB | 0 | 1 (5.56) | |
| IIB | 3 (7.14) | 0 | |
| IIIA | 9 (21.43) | 5 (27.78) | |
| IIIB | 8 (19.05) | 4 (22.22) | |
| IVA | 6 (14.29) | 5 (27.78) | |
| IVB | 15 (35.71) | 3 (16.67) | |
| Differentiation | 0.145 | ||
| Moderate | 15 (35.71) | 3 (16.67) | |
| Poor | 27 (64.29) | 15 (83.33) | |
| EGFR | 0.321 | ||
| Mutation | 11 (39.29) | 3 (23.08) | |
| Wild-type | 17 (60.71) | 10 (76.92) | |
| SUVmax of mediastinal LNs | 10.77 ± 0.75 | 6.45 ± 0.78 | 0.001 a |
| SUVmax of mediastinal LNs > 5 | <0.001 a | ||
| Yes | 37 (88.10) | 12 (66.67) | |
| No | 2 (4.76) | 4 (22.22) | |
| Mediastinal LN size (cm) | 24.55 ± 2.23 | 22.86 ± 4.13 | 0.698 |
| Mediastinal LN size > 1.5 cm | 0.027 a | ||
| Yes | 33 (78.57) | 9 (50) | |
| No | 9 (21.43) | 9 (50) | |
| Hounsfield units (HU) | 54.14 ± 2.81 | 53.18 ± 4.18 | 0.852 |
| ROSE slides | 6.62 ± 0.357 | 6.28 ± 0.497 | 0.594 |
| CEA (ng/mL) | 47.4 ± 26.39 | 29.46 ± 12.17 | 0.695 |
| Anti-SCC (ng/mL) | 2.94 ± 1.43 | 1.3 ± 0.37 | 0.515 |
| Final pathology of EBUS | 0.003 a | ||
| Correct | 30 (71.43) | 8 (50) | |
| Incorrect | 4 (9.52) | 8 (50) | |
| Operation time (min) | 50.4 ± 3.23 | 64 ± 6.42 | 0.04 a |
| Survival | 0.309 | ||
| Yes | 15 (35.71) | 9 (50) | |
| No | 27 (64.29) | 9 (50) |
a Significance was assessed using χ2 tests. Key: EBUS, endobronchial ultrasound; ROSE, rapid on-site evaluation; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; PDA, poorly differentiated carcinoma; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; SUV, standard uptake value; N2 LN, mediastinal lymph node at pretracheal retrocaval space or subcarinal area; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression of predictors for diagnostic accuracy of ROSE.
| Univariant | Multi-Variant | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | CI (95%) | HR | CI (95%) | |||
| N2 LN size > 1.5 cm | 3.667 | 1.125–11.955 | 0.031 a | 1.867 | 0.278–12.537 | 0.521 |
| Pathology accuracy | 7.5 | 1.792–31.383 | 0.006 a | 1.548 | 0.171–13.986 | 0.697 |
| SUVmax > 5 | 41 | 4.596–365.734 | 0.001 a | 20.258 | 1.761–233.057 | 0.016 a |
a Significance was assessed using Student’s t-tests. Key: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; SUVmax, maximum standard uptake value of FDG; N2 LN, mediastinal lymph node 4 or 7.
Figure 2The impact of the accuracy of ROSE in EBUS on overall survival. The Kaplan–Meier curve showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.418).