Endoscopic ultrasound guided biopsy versus mediastinoscopy for analysis of paratracheal and subcarinal lymph nodes in lung cancer staging
Introduction
Exact staging of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is important to improve selection of resectable and curable patients for surgery. Non-invasive methods, such as chest computer tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) are not recognised as proof of N2–N3 disease, because of inadequate accuracy of these examinations [1]. Therefore a pathological diagnosis of mediastinal tumour spread, obtained by an invasive staging method, is necessary to avoid unjustified rejection of patients from curative surgery.
Mediastinoscopy (MS) is considered as the gold standard method for invasive mediastinal staging, and recent guidelines recommend MS before all lung cancer resections with curative intent [2]. MS is performed in the operating room under general anaesthesia with a complication rate of 2–3% [3], [2]. The accessible area of MS is limited to the anterior part of the mediastinum, and in 10–15% of patients undergoing thoracotomy after a negative MS, N2–N3 disease is found [3], [4], [5].
During the past decade endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) has been introduced as a method for obtaining biopsy specimens from mediastinal structures. A number of studies have been published [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], the majority presenting retrospective results of EUS-FNA performed in patients selected by CT. The diagnostic values for such patients are relatively uniform with a high sensitivity of around 90% for mediastinal malignancy. Very few complications have been reported.
MS and EUS-FNA are often considered as complementary methods, MS covering the anterior- and EUS-FNA the posterior mediastinum [8], [15], [2]. However, no published studies have actually compared the two methods in patients, who had both procedures performed. Whether one of the methods may obviate the need for the other is unknown. Both methods can reach the paratracheal- and subcarinal-regions, but little is known about which method is the most accurate, when compared in patients undergoing both procedures.
The aim of this study was to assess and compare diagnostic values of MS and EUS-FNA for mediastinal malignancy in the paratracheal- and subcarinal-regions among patients, who had both procedures performed.
Section snippets
Patients
The patients were selected from a randomised controlled trial as those who had both MS and EUS-FNA performed. The purpose of the randomised trial was to compare routine EUS-FNA in lung cancer staging with a conventional staging strategy (including routine MS, but EUS-FNA only for selected patients). Between November 2001 and February 2004, 60 patients admitted to the Department of Respiratory Diseases, Gentofte University Hospital, Copenhagen, had both MS and EUS-FNA performed. All patients had
Results
Forty-eight patients had MS and EUS-FNA performed in the same session (EUS-FNA first), five had a MS date before EUS-FNA-date and seven had EUS-FNA-date before MS date.
Discussion
In this study the sensitivity of EUS-FNA was superior to that of MS for mediastinal malignancy in regions accessible by both methods. This trend was especially pronounced in the subcarinal region, where EUS-FNA diagnosed all of the 15 patients with subcarinal malignancy, whereas MS diagnosed only one. The yield of EUS-FNA was comparable to that of other studies [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], while the yield of MS was lower [5], [17], [18].
According to the literature
References (22)
- et al.
Noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence
Chest
(2003) - et al.
American College of Chest Physicians Lung cancer. Invasive staging: the guidelines
Chest
(2003) - et al.
Prospective evaluation of mediastinoscopy for assessment of carcinoma of the lung
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
(1986) - et al.
Role of mediastinoscopy in pretreatment staging of patients with primary lung cancer
Ann Thorac Surg
(1985) - et al.
Invasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence
Chest
(2003) - et al.
Endoscopic ultrasound in lung cancer patients with a normal mediastinum on computed tomography
Ann Thorac Surg
(2004) - et al.
Mediastinal lymph node involvement in potentially resectable lung cancer: comparison of CT, positron emission tomography, and endoscopic ultrasonography with and without fine-needle aspiration
Chest
(2003) - et al.
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for staging patients with carcinoma of the lung
Ann Thorac Surg
(2001) - et al.
Mediastinal lymphadenopathy in patients with or without previous malignancy: EUS-FNA based differential cytodiagnosis in 153 patients
Am J Gastroenterol
(2000) - et al.
Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer
Ann Thorac Surg
(1996)
The current role of mediastinoscopy in the evaluation of thoracic disease
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
Cited by (78)
Preoperative and Intraoperative Invasive Staging of the Mediastinum
2018, IASLC Thoracic OncologyEndosonography Versus Mediastinoscopy in Mediastinal Staging of Lung Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2016, Annals of Thoracic SurgeryCitation Excerpt :Six studies [15, 17, 20–23] prospectively enrolled subjects who were either suspected or known to have lung cancer while 1 was a retrospective study (Supplemental Table 1) [16]. EUS-FNA was compared to cervical mediastinoscopy in 3 studies [15, 16, 18], whereas EBUS-TBNA was compared to mediastinoscopy in 4 studies [17, 20, 21, 23]. In 2 of these studies, EBUS-TBNA was compared with VAM [21, 23].
Relevance of endoscopic ultrasonography and endobronchial ultrasonography to thoracic surgeons
2013, Thoracic Surgery Clinics