4.6 Article

Endoscopic Mediastinal Staging in Lung Cancer Is Superior to Gold Standard Surgical Staging

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 101, 期 2, 页码 547-550

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.08.070

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The objective was to evaluate whether endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS) or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) staging techniques of the mediastinum for lung cancer can change the treatment plan compared with the gold standard of surgical staging. Methods. Patients were retrospectively identified from a prospectively collected database. Endoscopic staging was compared with the gold standard cervical mediastinoscopy (CM). In cases where mediastinoscopy was not performed, EBUS/EUS was compared with ideal CM, a virtual procedure, which was assumed to have 100% rates of sensitivity and specificity. Results. EBUS was performed in 324 patients (99%), EUS in 295 patients (90%), and CM in 101 patients (31%); 226 patients (69%) were assumed to have undergone a virtual ideal CM and a virtual surgical mediastinal staging; 108 positive biopsies (33.0%) with endosonography had sampling of targets that were out of the scope of CM. Distant metastatic disease was diagnosed by EBUS/EUS in 7 patients (2.1%); 22 patients (6.7%) had positive targets outside the reach of the CM or virtual CM. If the 14 patients who had positive stations 5, 6, 10, and 11 are excluded (accessible with anterior mediastinotomy or extended cervical mediastinoscopy), there were 6 patients (1.8%) in whom endosonography upstaged the patient over ideal surgical mediastinal staging. In 20 patients (6.1%), ultrasound-guided biopsy made the diagnoses, which changed the treatment plan over CM and ideal CM. Conclusions. Combined EBUS- and EUS-guided biopsies can access more targets, including lung and distant metastasis, and thus have the potential to upstage patients compared with mediastinoscopy and change the treatment plan. (C) 2016 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据