A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

TBNA with and without EBUS: a comparative efficacy study for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. | LitMetric

TBNA with and without EBUS: a comparative efficacy study for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer.

J Thorac Dis

1 Department of Respiratory, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China ; 2 Division of Interventional Pulmonology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA ; 3 Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Published: May 2014

Introduction: Conventional transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) has been around for over 30 years with sensitivities approaching 70-90%. Recent development of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) TBNA demonstrated even higher sensitivities among experts. However EBUS-TBNA is more costly and less available worldwide than conventional TBNA. A comparison study to determine the efficacy of TBNA with and without EBUS in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer is described.

Methods: A total of 287 patients with mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy presenting for diagnosis and/or staging of lung cancer at enrolling institutions were included. Equal numbers of punctures were performed at the target lymph node stations using conventional TBNA techniques followed by EBUS-TBNA at the same sites. Patients and puncture sites that were biopsied by both methods and were positive for lung cancer were compared to establish efficacy of each technique on the same patients.

Results: In 253 patients at least one pair of specimens were obtained by conventional TBNA and EBUS-TBNA. In 83 of these patients malignancy was diagnosed. Among the 83 patients with a diagnosis of a malignancy there was no significant difference in the diagnostic yield of conventional TBNA versus EBUS-TBNA. When comparing diagnosis of malignancy for each lymph node sampled, there were a significantly greater number of positive (diagnostic for malignancy) lymph nodes sampled by EBUS-TBNA.

Conclusions: Recommendations for current practice depend on individual centers and bronchoscopist comfort level with TBNA (with or without EBUS). In our study, no significant difference was seen between the techniques for the diagnosis and staging of individual patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015015PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.03.22DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lung cancer
16
conventional tbna
16
tbna ebus
12
diagnosis staging
12
staging lung
12
tbna
9
lymph node
8
diagnosis malignancy
8
malignancy lymph
8
diagnosis
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!