Cargando…

Does needle-type increase the diagnostic yield of malignancies in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)?—a prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a commonly performed minimally invasive technique for diagnosing mediastinal pathologies. Currently, many needle types are being developed to improve the accuracy of the final diagnosis. Our study aimed to as...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Skrzypczak, Piotr, Gąsiorowski, Łukasz, Sielewicz, Magdalena, Roszak, Magdalena, Kamiński, Mikołaj, Piwkowski, Cezary
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9096298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35572913
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-21-1594
_version_ 1784705944808062976
author Skrzypczak, Piotr
Gąsiorowski, Łukasz
Sielewicz, Magdalena
Roszak, Magdalena
Kamiński, Mikołaj
Piwkowski, Cezary
author_facet Skrzypczak, Piotr
Gąsiorowski, Łukasz
Sielewicz, Magdalena
Roszak, Magdalena
Kamiński, Mikołaj
Piwkowski, Cezary
author_sort Skrzypczak, Piotr
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a commonly performed minimally invasive technique for diagnosing mediastinal pathologies. Currently, many needle types are being developed to improve the accuracy of the final diagnosis. Our study aimed to assess the possible advantages and disadvantages between the 22-gauge ProCore(®) needle and the standard 22-gauge needles. METHODS: In this prospective study, we enrolled a group of 363 EBUS-TBNA patients. For each patient, we used either the ProCore(®) needle or the standard one. We used the ProCore(®) needle in 51 patients and the standard needle in 312 patients. When a diagnosis could not be made, it was subsequently established with a surgical biopsy. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the biopsy for both needle types. RESULTS: By using EBUS-TBNA, a diagnosis was established in 306 patients (84.3%). The rates of the final diagnoses in ProCore(®) and standard needle groups were 92.2% and 83.0% (P=0.14), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for ProCore(®) vs. standard needles did not differ and were 89.2% vs. 79.3%, 100.0% vs. 95.7%, 100.0% vs. 98.5%, and 77.8% vs. 57.3%, respectively. A total of 57 patients required mediastinoscopy or surgical biopsy to obtain a final pathology. However, this number was not significantly different between the needles [ProCore(®) (7.8%) vs. standard (17%), P=0.26]. CONCLUSIONS: Both types of needles demonstrated very high diagnostic efficiency for malignancy, and there was no significant advantage of the ProCore(®) over the standard needle.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9096298
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90962982022-05-13 Does needle-type increase the diagnostic yield of malignancies in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)?—a prospective comparative study Skrzypczak, Piotr Gąsiorowski, Łukasz Sielewicz, Magdalena Roszak, Magdalena Kamiński, Mikołaj Piwkowski, Cezary J Thorac Dis Original Article BACKGROUND: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a commonly performed minimally invasive technique for diagnosing mediastinal pathologies. Currently, many needle types are being developed to improve the accuracy of the final diagnosis. Our study aimed to assess the possible advantages and disadvantages between the 22-gauge ProCore(®) needle and the standard 22-gauge needles. METHODS: In this prospective study, we enrolled a group of 363 EBUS-TBNA patients. For each patient, we used either the ProCore(®) needle or the standard one. We used the ProCore(®) needle in 51 patients and the standard needle in 312 patients. When a diagnosis could not be made, it was subsequently established with a surgical biopsy. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the biopsy for both needle types. RESULTS: By using EBUS-TBNA, a diagnosis was established in 306 patients (84.3%). The rates of the final diagnoses in ProCore(®) and standard needle groups were 92.2% and 83.0% (P=0.14), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for ProCore(®) vs. standard needles did not differ and were 89.2% vs. 79.3%, 100.0% vs. 95.7%, 100.0% vs. 98.5%, and 77.8% vs. 57.3%, respectively. A total of 57 patients required mediastinoscopy or surgical biopsy to obtain a final pathology. However, this number was not significantly different between the needles [ProCore(®) (7.8%) vs. standard (17%), P=0.26]. CONCLUSIONS: Both types of needles demonstrated very high diagnostic efficiency for malignancy, and there was no significant advantage of the ProCore(®) over the standard needle. AME Publishing Company 2022-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9096298/ /pubmed/35572913 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-21-1594 Text en 2022 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Skrzypczak, Piotr
Gąsiorowski, Łukasz
Sielewicz, Magdalena
Roszak, Magdalena
Kamiński, Mikołaj
Piwkowski, Cezary
Does needle-type increase the diagnostic yield of malignancies in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)?—a prospective comparative study
title Does needle-type increase the diagnostic yield of malignancies in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)?—a prospective comparative study
title_full Does needle-type increase the diagnostic yield of malignancies in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)?—a prospective comparative study
title_fullStr Does needle-type increase the diagnostic yield of malignancies in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)?—a prospective comparative study
title_full_unstemmed Does needle-type increase the diagnostic yield of malignancies in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)?—a prospective comparative study
title_short Does needle-type increase the diagnostic yield of malignancies in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)?—a prospective comparative study
title_sort does needle-type increase the diagnostic yield of malignancies in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (ebus-tbna)?—a prospective comparative study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9096298/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35572913
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-21-1594
work_keys_str_mv AT skrzypczakpiotr doesneedletypeincreasethediagnosticyieldofmalignanciesinendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationebustbnaaprospectivecomparativestudy
AT gasiorowskiłukasz doesneedletypeincreasethediagnosticyieldofmalignanciesinendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationebustbnaaprospectivecomparativestudy
AT sielewiczmagdalena doesneedletypeincreasethediagnosticyieldofmalignanciesinendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationebustbnaaprospectivecomparativestudy
AT roszakmagdalena doesneedletypeincreasethediagnosticyieldofmalignanciesinendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationebustbnaaprospectivecomparativestudy
AT kaminskimikołaj doesneedletypeincreasethediagnosticyieldofmalignanciesinendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationebustbnaaprospectivecomparativestudy
AT piwkowskicezary doesneedletypeincreasethediagnosticyieldofmalignanciesinendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationebustbnaaprospectivecomparativestudy