Acta cytologica · 2018
Utility of Rapid On-Site Cytologic Evaluation during Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration in Malignant and Nonmalignant Disease.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gianella Pietro, Soccal Paola M, Plojoux Jérôme, Frésard Isabelle, Pache Jean-Claude, Perneger Thomas, Gex Grégoire
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is an accurate procedure to sample mediastinal tissue. Rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) has been advocated to improve the performance of this procedure, but its benefit remains controversial. Our objective is to assess the utility of ROSE for EBUS-TBNA diagnostic accuracy among unselected patients.
METHODS: We prospectively collected data from all consecutive EBUS-TBNA procedures performed between 2008 and 2014. ROSE was introduced since 2011 in our daily practice. The accuracy of EBUS-TBNA with and without ROSE was compared in a univariate and multivariate model accounting for confounding factors. The impact of ROSE was then analyzed according to the etiology and size of the lesions.
RESULTS: Among 348 EBUS-TBNA procedures analyzed, 213 were performed with ROSE. The overall accuracy tended to be better with ROSE than without (90.6 vs. 84.4%; p = 0.082). After adjustment in a multivariate model, the benefit of ROSE still did not reach statistical significance (adjusted odds ratio 1.86; 95% confidence interval 0.79-4.41). Similar results were obtained in subgroups of patients with malignant disease or sarcoidosis. The size of the lesion did not influence the impact of ROSE on accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: ROSE was associated with a moderate increase in the accuracy of EBUS-TBNA, but the difference was not statistically significant. The same effect of ROSE was observed in malignant and nonmalignant lesions and this effect was not influenced by the lesion's size.
METHODS: We prospectively collected data from all consecutive EBUS-TBNA procedures performed between 2008 and 2014. ROSE was introduced since 2011 in our daily practice. The accuracy of EBUS-TBNA with and without ROSE was compared in a univariate and multivariate model accounting for confounding factors. The impact of ROSE was then analyzed according to the etiology and size of the lesions.
RESULTS: Among 348 EBUS-TBNA procedures analyzed, 213 were performed with ROSE. The overall accuracy tended to be better with ROSE than without (90.6 vs. 84.4%; p = 0.082). After adjustment in a multivariate model, the benefit of ROSE still did not reach statistical significance (adjusted odds ratio 1.86; 95% confidence interval 0.79-4.41). Similar results were obtained in subgroups of patients with malignant disease or sarcoidosis. The size of the lesion did not influence the impact of ROSE on accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: ROSE was associated with a moderate increase in the accuracy of EBUS-TBNA, but the difference was not statistically significant. The same effect of ROSE was observed in malignant and nonmalignant lesions and this effect was not influenced by the lesion's size.