A retrospective study of endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration versus conventional transbronchial needle aspiration in diagnosis/staging of hilar/mediastinal lymph node in lung cancer: Which role in clinical practice?
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Accepted: 1 April 2019
Authors
The conventional-trans bronchial needle aspiration (c-TBNA) has been the first procedure for sampling hilar/mediastinal lymph node for the diagnosis/staging of lung cancer. In the last decade the endobronchial ultrasound trans bronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) was introduced in clinical practice and became the first-choice exam in diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy (DA), sensitivity and adequacy of c-TBNA and EBUS-TBNA. It was a retrospective and observational multicenter study. The first endpoint was diagnostic accuracy of EBUS-TBNA versus c-TBNA. The secondary end-points were sensitivity and adequacy. Two hundred and nine consecutive patients underwent the procedure, 99 EBUS-TBNA and 110 c-TBNA. When lymph nodes with short axis <2 cm the diagnostic accuracy for correct diagnosis was 94.2% in EBUS-TBNA group and 89.7% in c-TBNA group (p=0.01); the sample adequacy was 70.3% and 42%, respectively (p=0.01); the sensitivity was 93% (95% CI, 82-98%) and 86.4% (95% CI, 67.6-95.6%), respectively (p=0.002). In lymph nodes with short axis ≥2 cm the diagnostic accuracy was 95.7% in EBUS-TBNA group and 93% in c-TBNA group (p=0.939); the sample adequacy was 68.7% and 68.3%, respectively (p=0.889); the sensitivity was 95.1% (95% CI, 83-99%) and 92.1%, respectively (95% CI, 78.7-97.7%) (p=0.898). The EBUS-TBNA in patients with lymph nodes size <2 cm presented a statistically significant difference in the DA, adequacy and sensitivity compared to c-TBNA procedure, while there were no significant differences in the DA, adequacy and sensitivity between EBUS-TBNA and c-TBNA in patients with lymph node size ≥2 cm. The results of our study indicated that the EBUS-TBNA should be the first-choice procedure for the diagnosis/staging in lung cancer patients with lymph node size <2 cm. In patients with lymph node size ≥2 cm, instead, both procedures can be used for the diagnosis/staging of lung cancer.
Downloads
Citations
