Diagnostic Performance and Cell Count of EBUS-TBNA Needle Gauges: A Prospective Trial.
19-G flex needle
cell count
diagnostic yield
endobronchial ultrasound-GUIDED transbronchial needle aspiration
lung cancer
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Jun 2023
13 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
28
04
2023
revised:
06
06
2023
accepted:
10
06
2023
medline:
28
6
2023
pubmed:
28
6
2023
entrez:
28
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a well-established diagnostic procedure for evaluating hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathies and is the gold standard for lung cancer diagnosis and staging. Recent studies assessed the effectiveness of the 19-G flex needle in obtaining larger EBUS-TBNA samples, and prospective small series gave similar results in terms of diagnostic yield when testing different gauge needles. The lack of homogeneity between series and the small sample size of some prospective cohorts poses a limit to the validity of those results. This prospective controlled study compared the 19-G flex and 22-G needles in terms of diagnostic yield. An objective laboratory method was used to count cells and compare the two needles' cytologic yields. A prospective controlled study was conducted on 90 patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA for the diagnosis of hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathies. The institutional ethic committee (IEO573) approved the study, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study, 84.4% of whom were diagnosed with malignancy and 15.6% with non-neoplastic disease. Sensitivity for malignancy was 93.4% (CI: 87.4-97.1%) for the 19-G needle and 92.6% (CI: 86.3-96.5%) for the 22-G needle ( The 19-G flex EBUS-TBNA needle is comparable to the 22-G needle in terms of diagnostic yield for cyto-histological evaluation of hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathies. There is no difference between the 19-G and 22-G needle cell counts evaluated by flow cytometry.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a well-established diagnostic procedure for evaluating hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathies and is the gold standard for lung cancer diagnosis and staging. Recent studies assessed the effectiveness of the 19-G flex needle in obtaining larger EBUS-TBNA samples, and prospective small series gave similar results in terms of diagnostic yield when testing different gauge needles. The lack of homogeneity between series and the small sample size of some prospective cohorts poses a limit to the validity of those results. This prospective controlled study compared the 19-G flex and 22-G needles in terms of diagnostic yield. An objective laboratory method was used to count cells and compare the two needles' cytologic yields.
MATERIAL
METHODS
A prospective controlled study was conducted on 90 patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA for the diagnosis of hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathies. The institutional ethic committee (IEO573) approved the study, and informed consent was obtained from all patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study, 84.4% of whom were diagnosed with malignancy and 15.6% with non-neoplastic disease. Sensitivity for malignancy was 93.4% (CI: 87.4-97.1%) for the 19-G needle and 92.6% (CI: 86.3-96.5%) for the 22-G needle (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The 19-G flex EBUS-TBNA needle is comparable to the 22-G needle in terms of diagnostic yield for cyto-histological evaluation of hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathies. There is no difference between the 19-G and 22-G needle cell counts evaluated by flow cytometry.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37373727
pii: jcm12124033
doi: 10.3390/jcm12124033
pmc: PMC10299412
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Ministero della Salute
ID : 5 x 1000
Organisme : Ministero della Salute
ID : ricerca corrente
Références
Chest. 2007 Sep;132(3 Suppl):202S-220S
pubmed: 17873169
Clin Respir J. 2021 Dec;15(12):1328-1336
pubmed: 34402194
Am J Clin Pathol. 2015 Oct;144(4):629-34
pubmed: 26386084
Chest. 2022 Sep;162(3):712-720
pubmed: 35381259
J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2021 Jul 1;28(3):209-214
pubmed: 33273249
Chest. 2013 May;143(5 Suppl):e211S-e250S
pubmed: 23649440
J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2021 Jan 1;28(1):29-33
pubmed: 32243274
Can Respir J. 2018 Mar 4;2018:4269798
pubmed: 29686741
J Bras Pneumol. 2021 Jul 12;47(4):e20200584
pubmed: 34259745
J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2022 Mar-Apr;11(2):114-121
pubmed: 34896033
J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2019 Oct;26(4):237-244
pubmed: 30557215
Respiration. 2018;95(1):55-62
pubmed: 29020679
J Thorac Dis. 2018 Apr;10(4):2388-2396
pubmed: 29850144
Eur Respir J. 2009 May;33(5):1156-64
pubmed: 19407050