These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of endobronchial needle aspiration with forceps and brush biopsies in the diagnosis of endobronchial lung cancer.
    Author: Bilaçeroğlu S, Günel O, Cağirici U, Perim K.
    Journal: Monaldi Arch Chest Dis; 1997 Feb; 52(1):13-7. PubMed ID: 9151514.
    Abstract:
    Endobronchial forceps biopsy (FB) specimens of lung carcinoma are not uncommonly interpreted as nondiagnostic owing to extensive crush artefact, necrosis, or insufficient tissue. FB cannot be performed in some endobronchial lung cancers (EBLCs) with massive bleeding tendency due to fragility and friability. Cytological studies from the brushings and washings may also be unproductive, increasing the bronchoscopist's frustration. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield and complications of endobronchial needle aspiration (EBNA) with those of FB and brush biopsy (BB) in EBLCs examined by fibreoptic bronchoscopy. A prospective sequential study was carried out on 151 in-patients with EBLC. Bronchial aspiration (BA), EBNA and BB were performed in the patients with respiratory distress and with accompanying tumours of high bleeding tendency, completely obstructing main bronchi (Group 1: 68 patients). BA, EBNA and FB were performed in those with either central or peripheral EBLCs but without respiratory distress and/or significant bleeding tendency (Group 2: 83 patients). In Group 1, the diagnostic yield of EBNA was found to be 90%, whereas that of BB was 66% (p < 0.05). In the same group, EBNA provided cell types in 95%, compared with 88% by BB (p > 0.05). EBNA was diagnostic in 92% of Group 2 patients, while FB established diagnosis in 78% of patients (p > 0.05). In determining cell type, no significant difference was found between EBNA (95%) and FB (97%) (p > 0.05). Regarding complications (only bleeding), there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between EBNA (7%) and BB (13%), or between EBNA (4%) and FB (17%). We conclude that in endobronchial lung cancers: 1) the diagnostic yield of endobronchial needle aspiration is higher than brush biopsy; 2) endobronchial needle aspiration increases the yield of brush biopsy when forceps biopsy cannot be performed owing to significant bleeding; 3) endobronchial needle aspiration increases the diagnostic yield when a forceps biopsy specimen is inadequate because of crush artefact, necrosis, or tissue resistance; and 4) endobronchial needle aspiration is as safe as brush biopsy and forceps biopsy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]