[Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for lung cancer diagnosis and staging in 179 patients]

Endobronchial Ultrasound under Moderate Sedation versus General Anesthesia

Background: Different anesthetic protocols may influence endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) outcomes, patient comfort, and even safety. In this study, two anesthesia techniques were assessed and compared for EBUS-TBNA. Methods: A prospective, multicenter study was carried out. Patients were allocated to Group 1 (general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade and controlled ventilation) and Group 2 (intravenous sedation). EBUS-TBNA accuracy was the primary outcome. Safety, patient comfort and satisfaction, and operators’ difficulties were defined as secondary outcomes. Results: Of the 115 patients enrolled (Group 1 = 59, Group 2 = 56), EBUS-TBNA was performed for hilar or mediastinal lesion diagnosis and lung cancer staging in, respectively, 77 (67%) and 38 (33%) patients. The numbers of lymph nodes stations (1.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 1.0, p = 0.472) and punctures per station (6.9 ± 3.1 vs. 6.0 ± 2.5, p = 0.084) were similar between groups. Adequate samples were obtained from 109 patients (97.3%) with similar diagnostic accuracy. Procedure duration was not significantly different (p = 0.348). Hemodynamic parameters and systolic and diastolic blood pressures were higher in Group 1 at the beginning and at the end of the procedure. Adverse events were equally distributed, and no significant differences were found regarding patient satisfaction and bronchoscopist/anesthesiologist difficulties. Conclusions: The type of anesthesia used did not influence EBUS-TBNA outcomes. EBUS-TBNA performed under sedation or general anesthesia did not affect the diagnostic yield, complication rate, and patients’ comfort and satisfaction.

Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration With a 19-G Needle Device

BACKGROUND

Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration is a well-established first-line minimally invasive modality for mediastinal lymph node sampling. Although results are excellent overall, the technique underperforms in certain situations. We aimed to describe our results using a new 19-G EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration device to determine safety and feasibility of this approach.

METHODS

We completed a retrospective chart review of all cases performed to the time of data analysis at each of 3 study sites.

RESULTS

A total of 165 procedures were performed with a total of 297 individual lymph nodes or lesions sampled with the 19-G device by 10 bronchoscopists. Relatively large targets were selected for sampling with the device (mean lymph node size: 20.4 mm; lung lesions: 33.5 mm). A specific diagnosis was obtained in 77.3% of cases with an additional 13.6% of cases with benign lymphocytes, for a procedural adequacy rate of 90.9%. Procedure sample adequacy was 88.6% in suspected malignant cases, 91.0% in suspected sarcoidosis/lymphadenopathy cases, and 85.7% of cases with suspected lymphoma. On a per-node basis, a specific diagnosis was noted in 191/280 (68.2%) of samples, with an additional 61 showing benign lymphocytes for a per-node sample adequacy rate of 90%. One case (0.6%) of intraprocedure bleeding was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

A new flexible 19-G EBUS needle was successfully and safely applied in a large patient cohort for sampling of lung and enlarged mediastinal lesions with high diagnostic rates across clinical indications.

Malignancy risk associated with the EBUS-FNA diagnostic categories nondiagnostic, benign, atypical, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant for mediastinal lymph node aspirate specimens

INTRODUCTION

Endobronchial ultrasonography-guided transbronchial fine-needle aspiration (EBUS-TBFNA) is used for preoperative staging of primary lung carcinomas. Published sensitivity and specificity are up to 86% and 100%, respectively. Diagnostic categories used by many cytopathologists are nondiagnostic, benign, atypical, suspicious, and malignant. Little information exists about the risk of malignancy associated with each of these categories.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Records of the Department of Pathology at the University of Utah were searched for all EBUS-TBFNAs of mediastinal and pulmonary hilar lymph nodes. Only cases with surgical follow-up were included in this study. For each diagnostic category (nondiagnostic, benign, atypical, suspicious, and malignant), the percentage of cases proven to be malignant was calculated following correlation of cytologic and surgical diagnoses. Positive and negative predictive values were calculated. For calculation of accuracy statistics, atypical cases were considered benign and suspicious cases were classified as malignant.

RESULTS

For this study, 136 EBUS-TBFNAs of lymph nodes were obtained with adequate surgical follow-up. Risk of malignancy for nondiagnostic specimens was 42%, benign specimens 32%, atypical specimens 40%, suspicious specimens 83%, and malignant specimens 84%. Positive predictive value was 84%, and negative predictive value was 68%.

CONCLUSIONS

The categories stratified malignancy risk ranging from a low of 32% for benign to 84% for malignant. The categories suspicious and malignant had similar malignancy risks. Atypical aspirates had a higher malignancy risk than benign aspirates did. Nondiagnostic aspirates had a malignancy risk similar to that of atypical aspirates. This scoring system may aid in treatment planning and patient counselling.