Comparing endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration specimens with and without rapid on-site evaluation.
Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Shadyside Hospital POB2, Suite 201 5150, Centre Avenue Pittsburgh, PA, USA.CytoJournal 01/2012; 9:2. DOI:10.4103/1742-6413.92414
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The study objective was to determine the clinical usefulness and accuracy of endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes. A retrospective analysis of a thoracic surgery unit's experience was performed. In a period of 19 months, 75 patients underwent the procedure (mean age = 65.5 +/- 1.6 years; male to female = 2:1) most commonly for mediastinal lymphadenopathy in the setting of diagnosed or suspected lung cancer. It was diagnostic in 68.9% after rapid on-site evaluation and 74.3% after final cytologic examination. The rapid on-site evaluation and final cytology results were discordant in 16.2% (P < .001). In 50 cases, the needle aspirate cytology could be compared with pathology results. The sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of cancer were 85% and 100%, respectively. The false-negative rate endobronchial ultrasound cytology was 8.1%. Mediastinal lymph node station 7 was most commonly biopsied. The stations with the highest diagnostic yield were: 11R, 3, 10L, and 7. Of the patients with a positive positron emission tomography scan with suspected clinical stage III lung cancer, cancer was downstaged in 40% after endobronchial ultrasound. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration is a clinically useful minimally invasive option for lung cancer staging and evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy. The procedure should be considered complementary to mediastinoscopy.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 02/2009; 137(2):413-8. · 3.41 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is an integral tool in the diagnosis and staging of malignant tumors of the lung. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of fine needle aspiration (FNA) samples has been advocated for as a guide for assessing the accuracy and adequacy of biopsy samples. Although ROSE has proven useful for numerous sites and procedures, few studies have specifically investigated its utility in the assessment of EBUS-TBNA specimens. The intention of this study was to explore the utility of ROSE for EBUS-TBNA specimens. The pathology files at our institution were searched for all EBUS-TBNA cases performed between January 2010 and June 2010. The data points included number of sites sampled per patient, location of site(s) sampled, on-site evaluation performed, preliminary on-site diagnosis rendered, final cytologic diagnosis, surgical pathology follow-up, cell blocks, and ancillary studies performed. A total of 294 EBUS-TBNA specimens were reviewed and included in the study; 264 of 294 (90%) were lymph nodes and 30 of 294 (10%) were lung mass lesions. ROSE was performed for 140 of 294 (48%) specimens. The on-site and final diagnoses were concordant in 104 (74%) and discordant in 36 (26%) cases. Diagnostic specimens were obtained in 132 of 140 (94%) cases with on-site evaluation and 138 of 154 (90%) without on-site evaluation. The final cytologic diagnosis was malignant in 60 of 132 (45%) cases with ROSE and 46 of 138 (33%) cases without ROSE, and the final diagnosis was benign in 57 of 132 (47%) with ROSE and 82 of 138 (59%) without ROSE. A cell block was obtained in 129 of 140 (92%) cases with ROSE and 136 of 154 (88%) cases without ROSE. The data demonstrate no remarkable difference in diagnostic yield, the number of sites sampled per patient, or clinical decision making between specimens collected via EBUS-TBNA with or without ROSE. As a result, this study challenges the notion that ROSE is beneficial for the evaluation of EBUS-TBNA specimens.CytoJournal 01/2011; 8:20.
- Cancer 09/2009; 117(5):289-97. · 5.20 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.