Optimising rapid on-site evaluation-assisted endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration of mediastinal lymph nodes: The real-time cytopathology intervention process

Rapid On-Site Evaluation Performed by an Interventional Pulmonologist: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE) during bronchoscopy allows us to assess sample adequacy for diagnosis and molecular analyses in the context of precision oncology. While extemporaneous smears are typically evaluated by pathologists, their presence during bronchoscopy is not always possible. Our aim is to assess the concordance between ROSE performed by interventional pulmonologists and cytopathologists.

METHODS

We performed ROSE on 133 samples collected from 108 patients who underwent bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of suspect thoracic findings or for mediastinal lymph node staging (May 2023-October 2023). Randomly selected smears (one for each collection site) were independently evaluated for adequacy by a pulmonologist and a pathologist to assess the concordance of their evaluation.

RESULTS

Among 133 selected smears evaluated by a pulmonologist and pathologist, 100 were adequate for both, 10 were inadequate for both and 23 were discordant; hence, global concordance was 82.7%; Cohen's Kappa was 0.385, defining fair agreement. Concordance was similar irrespective of sample collection site (lymph nodes vs. pulmonary lesions; p = 0.999) and among samples which were considered adequate or inadequate by the pulmonologist (p = 0.608).

CONCLUSIONS

Trained pulmonologists can evaluate the appropriateness of sampling with good concordance with cytopathologists. Our work supports autonomous ROSE by pulmonologists where pathologists are not immediately available.

Conventional Transbronchial Needle Aspiration (cTBNA) and EBUS-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration (EBUS-TBNA): A Retrospective Study on the Comparison of the Two Methods for Diagnostic Adequacy in Molecular Analysis

Introduction: In recent years, there has been a growing development of molecularly targeted therapies for various types of solid tumors—in particular, in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This has required the need for greater quantities of tissue that is able to support ancillary studies, alongside cyto-histological diagnoses for the assessment of molecular targets. Conventional TBNA (cTBNA) and EBUS-guided TBNA (EBUS-TBNA) have shown a high diagnostic yield for malignant mediastinal and/or hilar lymph node enlargement and peribronchial masses; however, few studies have compared these two procedures. We retrospectively compared TBNA patients (EBUS-TBNA and cTBNA) in order to determine the diagnostic yield and material adequacy for subsequent ancillary analyses. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 318 patients with clinical suspicion of lung cancer or with disease recurrence. All of the patients underwent TBNA (either EBUS-TBNA or cTBNA) on enlarged mediastinal and/or hilar lymph nodes and peribronchial masses between January 2017 and June 2021 at the University Hospital of Pisa, Italy. After a definitive diagnosis, molecular analyses and an evaluation of PD-L1 expression were performed in the cases of adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and NSCLC, not otherwise specified (NOS). Results: EBUS-TBNA was performed in 199 patients and cTBNA was performed in 119 patients with 374 and 142 lymph nodes, respectively. The overall diagnostic yield for positive diagnoses was 59% (diagnostic rate of 61% in EBUS-TBNA, and 55% in cTBNA). Adenocarcinoma (ADC) was the most frequent diagnosis in both methods. EBUS-TBNA diagnostic adequacy was 72% for molecular analysis, while it was 55.5% for cTBNA, showing a statistical trend (p = 0.08) towards the significance of EBUS. The average percentage of neoplastic cells was also statistically different between the two methods (p = 0.05), reaching 51.19 ± 22.14 in EBUS-TBNA and 45.25 ± 22.84 in cTBNA. With regard to the PD-L1 protein expression, the percentage of positivity was similar in both procedures (86% in EBUS-TBNA, 85% in cTBNA). Conclusions: Conventional TBNA (cTBNA) and EBUS-guided TBNA (EBUS-TBNA) are minimally invasive diagnostic methods that are associated with a high diagnostic yield. However, EBUS-TBNA has an improved diagnostic adequacy for molecular analysis compared to cTBNA, and is associated with a higher average percentage of neoplastic cells.

What Is New in Biomarker Testing at Diagnosis of Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma? Implications for Cytology and Liquid Biopsy

The discovery and clinical validation of biomarkers predictive of the response of non-squamous non-small-cell lung carcinomas (NS-NSCLC) to therapeutic strategies continue to provide new data. The evaluation of novel treatments is based on molecular analyses aimed at determining their efficacy. These tests are increasing in number, but the tissue specimens are smaller and smaller and/or can have few tumor cells. Indeed, in addition to tissue samples, complementary cytological and/or blood samples can also give access to these biomarkers. To date, it is recommended and necessary to look for the status of five genomic molecular biomarkers (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAFV600, NTRK) and of a protein biomarker (PD-L1). However, the short- and more or less long-term emergence of new targeted treatments of genomic alterations on RET and MET, but also on others’ genomic alteration, notably on KRAS, HER2, NRG1, SMARCA4, and NUT, have made cellular and blood samples essential for molecular testing. The aim of this review is to present the interest in using cytological and/or liquid biopsies as complementary biological material, or as an alternative to tissue specimens, for detection at diagnosis of new predictive biomarkers of NS-NSCLC.