• Users Online:719
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 31-35

A novel, stepwise approach combining conventional and endobronchial ultrasound needle aspiration for mediastinal lymph node sampling

Institute of Pulmonary Medicine, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Levy Liran
Institute of Pulmonary Medicine, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, POB 12000, Jerusalem 91120
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_29_17

Rights and Permissions

Background and Objectives: Since the introduction of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), most pulmonary centers use this technique exclusively for mediastinal lymph node (LN) sampling. Conventional “blind” TBNA (cTBNA), however, is cheaper, more accessible, provides more tissue, and requires less training. We evaluated whether sampling of mediastinal LN using EBUS-TBNA or cTBNA according to a predefined set of criteria provides acceptable diagnostic yield. Materials and Methods: Sampling method was determined prospectively according to a predefined set of criteria based on LN station, LN size, and presumed diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value were evaluated for each modality. Results: One hundred and eighty-six biopsies were carried out over a 3-year period (86 cTBNA, 100 EBUS-TBNA). Seventy-seven percent of LN biopsied by EBUS-TBNA were <20 mm, while 83% of cTBNA biopsies were ≥20 mm. Most common sites of cTBNA sampling were station 7, 4R, and 11R as opposed to 7, 11R, 4R, and 4 L in the case of EBUS-TBNA. Most common EBUS-TBNA diagnosis was malignancy versus sarcoidosis in cTBNA. EBUS-TBNA and cTBNA both had a true positive yield of 65%, but EBUS-TBNA had a higher true negative rate (21% vs. 2% for cTBNA) and a lower false negative rate (7% vs. 28%). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for EBUS-TBNA were 90%, 100%, 100%, and 75%, respectively, and for cTBNA were 68%, 100%, 100%, and 7%, respectively. Conclusion: A stepwise approach based on LN size, station, and presumed diagnosis may be a reasonable, cost-effective approach in choosing between cTBNA and EBUS-TBNA.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded202    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal