Comparison of specimen adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of a 25-gauge and 22-gauge needle in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration.
Bronchoscopy
endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)
lymph node
Journal
Journal of thoracic disease
ISSN: 2072-1439
Titre abrégé: J Thorac Dis
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101533916
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
entrez:
28
9
2019
pubmed:
29
9
2019
medline:
29
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is the preferred diagnostic modality for sampling mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes (LNs). The conventional needle used for sampling is either a 21-gauge (21G) or 22-gauge (22G). A 25-gauge (25G) needle has recently been introduced with little known regarding its efficacy. A retrospective study was conducted on patients referred for EBUS-TBNA who had LNs sampled using a 25G or 22G needle. A propensity score matching analysis was performed. After matching the groups, each LN was assessed for adequacy and final diagnosis. Non-diagnostic and benign lymphoid specimens were compared with repeat biopsy findings or long-term clinical and radiological follow-up. A total of 158 LNs were included. An adequate sample was obtained in 92.4% (73/79) in the 25G group and 92.4% (73/79) in the 22G group (P=1). The 25G group diagnosed benign lymphoid tissue in 82.3% (65/79), granuloma in 7.6% (6/79) and malignancy in 2.5% (2/79). Six lymph nodes in the 25G group were non-diagnostic (7.6%). The 22G group diagnosed benign lymphoid tissue in 83.5% (66/79), granuloma in 3.8% (3/79) and malignancy in 5.1% (4/79). Six lymph nodes in the 22G group were non-diagnostic (7.6%). The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy in the 25G group was 88.9% (95% CI, 51.8-99.7%), 100% (95% CI, 92.1-100%), 97.8% (95% CI, 87.6-99.7%) and 98.2% (95% CI, 90.1-100%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, NPV and diagnostic accuracy in the 22G group was 77.8% (95% CI, 40-97.2%), 100% (95% CI, 86.8-100%), 92.9% (95% CI, 79.3-97.8%) and 94.3% (95% CI, 80.8-99.3%), respectively. The 25G and 22G group were comparable in diagnostic accuracy (P=0.7). The 25G and 22G needle achieve comparable specimen adequacy and diagnostic accuracy in EBUS-TBNA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is the preferred diagnostic modality for sampling mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes (LNs). The conventional needle used for sampling is either a 21-gauge (21G) or 22-gauge (22G). A 25-gauge (25G) needle has recently been introduced with little known regarding its efficacy.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective study was conducted on patients referred for EBUS-TBNA who had LNs sampled using a 25G or 22G needle. A propensity score matching analysis was performed. After matching the groups, each LN was assessed for adequacy and final diagnosis. Non-diagnostic and benign lymphoid specimens were compared with repeat biopsy findings or long-term clinical and radiological follow-up.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 158 LNs were included. An adequate sample was obtained in 92.4% (73/79) in the 25G group and 92.4% (73/79) in the 22G group (P=1). The 25G group diagnosed benign lymphoid tissue in 82.3% (65/79), granuloma in 7.6% (6/79) and malignancy in 2.5% (2/79). Six lymph nodes in the 25G group were non-diagnostic (7.6%). The 22G group diagnosed benign lymphoid tissue in 83.5% (66/79), granuloma in 3.8% (3/79) and malignancy in 5.1% (4/79). Six lymph nodes in the 22G group were non-diagnostic (7.6%). The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy in the 25G group was 88.9% (95% CI, 51.8-99.7%), 100% (95% CI, 92.1-100%), 97.8% (95% CI, 87.6-99.7%) and 98.2% (95% CI, 90.1-100%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, NPV and diagnostic accuracy in the 22G group was 77.8% (95% CI, 40-97.2%), 100% (95% CI, 86.8-100%), 92.9% (95% CI, 79.3-97.8%) and 94.3% (95% CI, 80.8-99.3%), respectively. The 25G and 22G group were comparable in diagnostic accuracy (P=0.7).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The 25G and 22G needle achieve comparable specimen adequacy and diagnostic accuracy in EBUS-TBNA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31559072
doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.04.20
pii: jtd-11-08-3643
pmc: PMC6753430
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3643-3649Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: B Young is a consultant for Pinnacle Biologics, Auris Surgical Robotics and ProVation. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jul 10;26(20):3346-50
pubmed: 18519953
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Mar;24(3):384-90
pubmed: 19032453
Endoscopy. 2009 May;41(5):445-8
pubmed: 19418399
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009 Aug;35(8):1271-7
pubmed: 19540652
Respir Med. 2009 Dec;103(12):1796-800
pubmed: 19674882
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2009;2009:546390
pubmed: 19997511
Chest. 2010 Oct;138(4):790-4
pubmed: 20154073
Respirology. 2011 Jan;16(1):90-4
pubmed: 20920141
Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Aug;92(2):428-32; discussion 433
pubmed: 21592456
Chest. 2011 Dec;140(6):1550-1556
pubmed: 21636663
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 Jun 15;185(12):1316-22
pubmed: 22505743
Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):86-92
pubmed: 23307148
Ann Nucl Med. 2013 May;27(4):400-5
pubmed: 23400394
Chest. 2013 Apr;143(4):1036-1043
pubmed: 23632441
Chest. 2013 May;143(5 Suppl):e211S-e250S
pubmed: 23649440
Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2013 Jun;9(6):352-63
pubmed: 23935542
J Thorac Oncol. 2013 Nov;8(11):1438-1444
pubmed: 24128714
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014 May;45(5):787-98
pubmed: 24578407
Cancer Cytopathol. 2015 Feb;123(2):92-7
pubmed: 25186645
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2014 May 31;1(1):e000040
pubmed: 25478187
Cancer Cytopathol. 2015 Jun;123(6):362-72
pubmed: 25931443
Chest. 2016 Mar;149(3):816-35
pubmed: 26402427
Respir Investig. 2016 Jan;54(1):29-34
pubmed: 26718142
Endosc Ultrasound. 2016 Jan-Feb;5(1):43-8
pubmed: 26879166
Clin Lung Cancer. 2018 May;19(3):230-238.e2
pubmed: 29277564
J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2018 Oct;25(4):264-268
pubmed: 29771776