Search

Background/Purpose: Rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) has been shown to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial biopsy (EBUS-TBB). However, ROSE by a cytopathologist or cytotechnologist is not always available during the procedure. The purposes of this study were to verify that a pulmonologist, after receiving training in cytology, could accurately assess an EBUS-TBB specimen on-site, and to evaluate the contribution of ROSE to EBUS-TBB. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent EBUS-TBB for diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) from January 2014 to June 2017 was performed. PPLs without a malignant diagnosis were excluded. The ROSE result determined by a pulmonologist was compared to the formal imprint cytologic report and pathologic report. The diagnostic accuracy of EBUS-TBB was also compared between those with and without ROSE. Results: Two hundred ninety-three patients who underwent 336 EBUS-TBB procedures for PPL diagnosis and were found to have proven malignancy were enrolled. Eighty-six procedures were performed with ROSE. With the formal imprint cytologic diagnosis as the standard, ROSE had 96.9% sensitivity, 68.2% specificity, 89.9% positive predictive value (PPV), 88.2% negative predictive value (NPV), and 89.5% diagnostic accuracy. With the formal pathologic result as the standard, ROSE had 88.2% sensitivity, 80% specificity, 97.1% PPV, 47.1% NPV, and 87.2% diagnostic accuracy, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher when ROSE was performed during EBUS-TBB (88.4% vs 68.0%, P

Background: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial biopsy (EBUS-TBB) is used for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs), but the diagnostic yield is not adequate. Cone-beam computed tomography-derived augmented fluoroscopy (CBCT-AF) can be utilized to assess the location of PPLs and biopsy devices, and has the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy of bronchoscopic techniques. The purpose of this study was to verify the contribution of CBCT-AF to EBUS-TBB. Methods: Patients who underwent EBUS-TBB for diagnosis of PPLs were enrolled. The navigation success rate and diagnostic yield were used to evaluate the effectiveness of CBCT-AF in EBUS-TBB. Results: In this study, 236 patients who underwent EBUS-TBB for PPL diagnosis were enrolled. One hundred fifteen patients were in CBCT-AF group and 121 were in non-AF group. The navigation success rate was significantly higher in the CBCT-AF group (96.5% vs. 86.8%, p = 0.006). The diagnostic yield was even better in the CBCT-AF group when the target lesion was small in size (68.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.026 for lesions ≤10 mm and 77.5% vs. 46.4%, p = 0.016 for lesions 10–20 mm, respectively). The diagnostic yield of the two study groups became similar when the procedures with a failure of navigation were excluded. The procedure-related complication rate was similar between the two study groups. Conclusion: CBCT-AF is safe, and effectively enhances the navigation success rate, thereby increasing the diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBB for PPLs.