Scholarlink

Background <p>Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is the preferred diagnostic modality for evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy. However, its diagnostic yield is significantly reduced in conditions such as sarcoidosis, tuberculosis, and lymphoma. To address this limitation, EBUS-guided intranodal forceps biopsy (EBUS-IFB) has been proposed as an adjunct technique to enhance diagnostic accuracy in these challenging cases. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EBUS-IFB in the assessment of mediastinal lymphadenopathy.</p> Methods <p>We retrospectively reviewed patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy who underwent EBUS-guided intranodal forceps biopsy (EBUS-IFB). Diagnostic yield was determined using a composite reference standard (CRS), which was considered positive if a definitive diagnosis was established by any of the following: rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), EBUS-TBNA, EBUS-IFB, bronchial biopsy, or transbronchial lung biopsy. To specifically evaluate the incremental diagnostic yield of EBUS-IFB, cases with non-diagnostic ROSE results were analysed separately.</p> Results <p>Of the 40 cases with undiagnosed mediastinal lymphadenopathy, CRS was obtained in 31 cases (77.5%), while the remainder were diagnosed as reactive lymphadenopathy. Sampling adequacy was achieved in 39 out of 40 cases (97.5%).&#xa0;The overall diagnostic yield for EBUS-TBNA, EBUS-IFB, and combined EBUS-TBNA along with IFB (combined approach) were 54.8%, 83.9% (<i>p</i> value:0.03), and 90.3% (<i>p</i> value: 0.004) respectively. The additional diagnostic yield for EBUS-IFB and the combined approach (EBUS-TBNA + IFB) were 29.0% and 35.5% respectively, as compared to EBUS-TBNA alone. The sensitivity and specificity EBUS-IFB were 84% and 100% respectively.&#xa0;In subgroup analysis for cases with non-diagnostic ROSE, the diagnostic yield for EBUS-TBNA, EBUS-IFB, and the combined approach (EBUS-TBNA + IFB) were 48.2%, 85.2% (<i>p</i> value: 0.009) and 88.9% (<i>p</i> value: 0.003) respectively. The additional diagnostic yield for EBUS-IFB and the combined approach (EBUS-TBNA + IFB) were 37.0% and 40.7% respectively, as compared to EBUS-TBNA alone. The sensitivity and specificity of EBUS-IFB when ROSE was non-diagnostic were 85.2% and 100% respectively.&#xa0;No major complications were noted.</p> Conclusion <p>The addition of IFB to routine TBNA significantly improves the diagnostic yield of EBUS, particularly in cases of non-diagnostic ROSE, with no added procedural complications.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A retrospective analysis of the diagnostic utility of endobronchial ultrasound guided–intranodal forceps biopsy (EBUS-IFB) in the evaluation of mediastinal adenopathy

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月21日

查看全文
  • Richu Bob Kurien,
  • Priya Nadesan,
  • Balamugesh Thangakunam,
  • Barney Isaac,
  • Thomas Alex Kodiatte,
  • Reka Karuppusami

摘要

Background

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is the preferred diagnostic modality for evaluating mediastinal lymphadenopathy. However, its diagnostic yield is significantly reduced in conditions such as sarcoidosis, tuberculosis, and lymphoma. To address this limitation, EBUS-guided intranodal forceps biopsy (EBUS-IFB) has been proposed as an adjunct technique to enhance diagnostic accuracy in these challenging cases. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EBUS-IFB in the assessment of mediastinal lymphadenopathy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy who underwent EBUS-guided intranodal forceps biopsy (EBUS-IFB). Diagnostic yield was determined using a composite reference standard (CRS), which was considered positive if a definitive diagnosis was established by any of the following: rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), EBUS-TBNA, EBUS-IFB, bronchial biopsy, or transbronchial lung biopsy. To specifically evaluate the incremental diagnostic yield of EBUS-IFB, cases with non-diagnostic ROSE results were analysed separately.

Results

Of the 40 cases with undiagnosed mediastinal lymphadenopathy, CRS was obtained in 31 cases (77.5%), while the remainder were diagnosed as reactive lymphadenopathy. Sampling adequacy was achieved in 39 out of 40 cases (97.5%). The overall diagnostic yield for EBUS-TBNA, EBUS-IFB, and combined EBUS-TBNA along with IFB (combined approach) were 54.8%, 83.9% (p value:0.03), and 90.3% (p value: 0.004) respectively. The additional diagnostic yield for EBUS-IFB and the combined approach (EBUS-TBNA + IFB) were 29.0% and 35.5% respectively, as compared to EBUS-TBNA alone. The sensitivity and specificity EBUS-IFB were 84% and 100% respectively. In subgroup analysis for cases with non-diagnostic ROSE, the diagnostic yield for EBUS-TBNA, EBUS-IFB, and the combined approach (EBUS-TBNA + IFB) were 48.2%, 85.2% (p value: 0.009) and 88.9% (p value: 0.003) respectively. The additional diagnostic yield for EBUS-IFB and the combined approach (EBUS-TBNA + IFB) were 37.0% and 40.7% respectively, as compared to EBUS-TBNA alone. The sensitivity and specificity of EBUS-IFB when ROSE was non-diagnostic were 85.2% and 100% respectively. No major complications were noted.

Conclusion

The addition of IFB to routine TBNA significantly improves the diagnostic yield of EBUS, particularly in cases of non-diagnostic ROSE, with no added procedural complications.