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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

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

Utility of adding oesophageal to endobronchial endosonography when staging lung cancer: a randomised trial. | LitMetric

Introduction: Both combined endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS) and transoesophageal bronchoscopic ultrasonography (EUS-B) and EBUS alone have been recommended for preoperative mediastinal staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, no randomised study comparing these two methods has been published. The purpose of the present study was to compare the sensitivity of EBUS and that of combined EBUS and EUS-B (EBUS/EUS-B) in terms of detecting N2/N3 disease during staging of NSCLC.

Methods: Patients with known or suspected, potentially operable NSCLC were recruited and randomised to undergo EBUS or EBUS/EUS-B under conscious sedation. The primary end-point was a comparison of the sensitivity of EBUS alone and EBUS/EUS-B.

Results: A total of 240 patients were enrolled and randomised, among whom 219 (105 EBUS group; 114 EBUS/EUS-B group) were included in the analysis. The sensitivities of EBUS and EBUS/EUS-B in terms of detecting N2/N3 disease were 75.0% and 79.3% respectively (p=0.698). In the EBUS/EUS-B group, only EUS-B yielded diagnostic results in two patients; the sensitivity thus increased from 72.4% to 79.3% on addition of EUS-B to EBUS.

Conclusions: The difference in the sensitivities of EBUS alone and EBUS/EUS-B in terms of diagnosing N2/N3 disease was not statistically significant. Although the increase in sensitivity with the addition of EUS-B is modest, it is maximised when EUS-B is used to sample lymph nodes not accessible by EBUS alone.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11609961PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00326-2024DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ebus/eus-b terms
12
n2/n3 disease
12
ebus ebus/eus-b
12
ebus
10
lung cancer
8
sensitivity ebus
8
terms detecting
8
detecting n2/n3
8
ebus/eus-b group
8
sensitivities ebus
8

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!