Shannon J J, Bude R O, Orens J B, Becker F S, Whyte R I, Rubin J M, Quint L E, Martinez F J
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, USA.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996 Apr;153(4 Pt 1):1424-30. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.153.4.8616576.
We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to prospectively confirm that ultrasound-directed transbronchial needle aspiration (USTBNA) results in: (1) improved sensitivity for detecting lymph nodes involved with neoplasm, and (2) a decreased number of aspirates needed to achieve a diagnosis as compared with standard transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA). The study was conducted in a tertiary medical center on patients undergoing fiberoptic bronchoscopy in the evaluation of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes. USTBNA or TBNA were followed by rapid, on-site cytopathology examination of the collected specimens. Measurements included the (1) age and sex of the patient, prior diagnosis of cancer, nodal short-axis diameter and node location as determined by computerized tomography (CT), and endobronchial abnormalities at bronchoscopy; (2) number, order, and location of transbronchial aspirates and results of on-site evaluation; (3) results of surgical exploration in patients with negative transbronchial needle aspiration; (4) sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of USTBNA and TBNA; (5) number of aspirates required for successful lymph node aspiration as well as for a diagnosis of cancer for both USTBNA and TBNA; and (6) multiple logistic regression analysis to determine the significance of combinations of clinical predictors and needle aspirate results. Eighty-two bronchoscopic examinations were performed on 80 patients. We found no significant difference between USTBNA and TBNA in sensitivity (82.6% versus 90.5%, respectively), specificity (100% for both), or diagnostic accuracy (86.7% versus 91.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of USTBNA and TBNA were similarly high, regardless of node location (paratracheal or subcarinal). A decrease in the number of aspirates required for lymph node sampling approached statistical significance for all USTBNAs as compared with TBNAs (2.03 +/- 0.19 versus 2.62 +/- 0.25, p = 0.06), but this was not demonstrated for the number required to confirm cancer (1.95 +/- 0.47 versus 2.68 +/- 0.21, p = 0.17). The number of aspirates to successful lymph node aspiration decreased with USTBNA versus TBNA in paratracheal lymph nodes (2.00 +/- 0.20 versus 2.91 +/- 0.34, p = 0.03), but not to a diagnosis of cancer (1.93 +/- 0.25 versus 3.00 +/- 0.58, p = 0.11). No difference was seen in the number of aspirates for subcarinal nodes. The number of TBNA attempts for paratracheal lymph node sampling was inversely correlated with node size (r = 0.48, p = 0.02). No such relation was seen with USTBNA of paratracheal nodes (r = 0.09, p = 0.66), TBNA of subcarinal nodes, or USTBNA of subcarinal nodes. A similar relation was seen between the number of aspirates to a diagnosis of cancer. On multiple logistic regression analysis, a positive transbronchial aspirate was associated only with a larger lymph node and history of prior cancer. We conclude that: (1) in the setting of on-site cytopathology, transbronchial needle aspiration has a high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy in the evaluation of enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes suspected of harboring malignancy; (2) mediastinal anatomy, including vascular structures and lymph nodes, is clearly imaged with endobronchial ultrasonography; (3) a greater short-axis diameter of the mediastinal lymph node and history of a prior malignancy increase the likelihood of a positive transbronchial aspiration; (4) USTBNA exhibits a similarly high diagnostic yield to TBNA in the setting of rapid on-site cytopathology evaluation; (5) USTBNA decreases the number of aspirates required for paratracheal lymph node sampling, which may be particularly useful in sampling smaller paratracheal nodes or at institutions that do not utilize rapid on-site cytopathology evaluation.
我们进行了一项随机对照试验,以前瞻性地证实超声引导下经支气管针吸活检术(USTBNA)能够:(1)提高检测肿瘤累及淋巴结的敏感性,以及(2)与标准经支气管针吸活检术(TBNA)相比,减少获得诊断所需的针吸次数。该研究在一家三级医疗中心对因评估纵隔淋巴结肿大而接受纤维支气管镜检查的患者进行。USTBNA或TBNA之后对采集的标本进行快速现场细胞病理学检查。测量指标包括:(1)患者的年龄和性别、既往癌症诊断、通过计算机断层扫描(CT)确定的淋巴结短轴直径和淋巴结位置,以及支气管镜检查时的支气管内异常情况;(2)经支气管针吸的次数、顺序和位置以及现场评估结果;(3)经支气管针吸阴性患者的手术探查结果;(4)USTBNA和TBNA的敏感性、特异性和诊断准确性;(5)USTBNA和TBNA成功进行淋巴结针吸以及诊断癌症所需的针吸次数;以及(6)多因素逻辑回归分析,以确定临床预测因素和针吸结果组合的意义。对80例患者进行了82次支气管镜检查。我们发现USTBNA和TBNA在敏感性(分别为82.6%和90.5%)、特异性(两者均为100%)或诊断准确性(分别为86.7%和91.7%)方面无显著差异。无论淋巴结位置(气管旁或隆突下)如何,USTBNA和TBNA的敏感性、特异性和诊断准确性都同样高。与TBNA相比,所有USTBNA进行淋巴结采样所需的针吸次数减少接近统计学意义(2.03±0.19对2.62±0.25,p = 0.06),但在确诊癌症所需的针吸次数方面未得到证实(1.95±0.47对2.68±0.21,p = 0.17)。与TBNA相比,气管旁淋巴结采用USTBNA成功进行淋巴结针吸的次数减少(2.00±0.20对2.91±0.34,p = 0.03),但在确诊癌症方面未减少(1.93±0.25对3.00±0.58,p = 0.11)。隆突下淋巴结的针吸次数没有差异。气管旁淋巴结采样时TBNA尝试次数与淋巴结大小呈负相关(r = 0.48,p = 0.02)。气管旁淋巴结的USTBNA、隆突下淋巴结的TBNA或隆突下淋巴结的USTBNA均未发现这种关系。确诊癌症的针吸次数之间也存在类似关系。在多因素逻辑回归分析中,经支气管针吸阳性仅与较大的淋巴结和既往癌症病史相关。我们得出结论:(1)在现场细胞病理学检查的情况下,经支气管针吸活检术在评估怀疑有恶性肿瘤的纵隔淋巴结肿大时具有高敏感性、特异性和诊断准确性;(2)支气管内超声能够清晰显示纵隔解剖结构,包括血管结构和淋巴结;(3)纵隔淋巴结较大的短轴直径和既往恶性肿瘤病史增加了经支气管针吸阳性的可能性;(4)在快速现场细胞病理学评估的情况下,USTBNA与TBNA的诊断率同样高;(5)USTBNA减少了气管旁淋巴结采样所需的针吸次数,这在采样较小的气管旁淋巴结或在未采用快速现场细胞病理学评估的机构中可能特别有用。