A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Clinical utility of EBUS-TBNA of hilar, interlobar, and lobar lymph nodes in patients with primary lung cancer. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is used to evaluate hilar/interlobar/lobar lymph nodes. This study aimed to assess the clinical utility of EBUS-TBNA for station 10/11/12 lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with primary lung cancer.

Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients with primary lung cancer who underwent EBUS-TBNA for station 10/11/12 LNs from January 2015 to December 2019. Patients with benign results from EBUS-TBNA who did not undergo surgical sampling/clinical follow-up or who received radiotherapy/chemotherapy were excluded.

Results: The analyses were conducted on 889 LNs from 797 patients. The overall diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value of EBUS-TBNA were 95.7, 100, 97.3, 93.2, and 100%, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity was significantly lower for LNs <10 mm than ≥10 mm in size (90.1% vs. 97.8%; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in diagnostic performance according to the nodal station (10 vs. 11/12) and left- versus right-sided LNs. The diagnostic sensitivity (100 vs. 95.5%; p = 0.221) and specificity (100 vs. 100%) of N3 LNs was not significantly different from those of N1 LNs. In this study, eight (8/91, 8.8%) patients with cN1 NSCLC received neoadjuvant treatment based on the results of EBUS-TBNA.

Conclusion: EBUS-TBNA accurately evaluates station 10/11/12 LNs of both N1 and N3 disease. The diagnostic performances of EBUS-TBNA for station 10/11/12 LNs seem to be comparable to those of EBUS-TBNA for mediastinal LNs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9436691PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14587DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

lymph nodes
12
patients primary
12
primary lung
12
clinical utility
8
utility ebus-tbna
8
lung cancer
8
ebus-tbna station
8
station 10/11/12
8
diagnostic sensitivity
8
ebus-tbna
6

Similar Publications