4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

The Efficacy of Restaging Endobronchial Ultrasound in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer After Preoperative Therapy

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 98, 期 3, 页码 1008-1012

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.04.091

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Patient selection for surgery after neo-adjuvant therapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer depends on accurate restaging of mediastinal (N2) lymph nodes. Our objective is to assess the accuracy of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) for restaging N2 lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy. Methods. This is a retrospective review of patients with non-small cell lung cancer who underwent staging with repeat computed tomography and positron emission tomography and had restaging EBUS for sampling of N2 lymph nodes. Endobronchial ultrasound was performed for suspicious nodes in stations 2R, 2L, 4R, 4L, and 7. Selected patients who were N2-negative underwent thoracotomy with complete thoracic lymphadenectomy. Results. There were 32 patients with N2 disease who underwent preoperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, and subsequently had restaging EBUS. There were 3 patients who had recalcitrant N2 nodal disease detected by EBUS. There were 5 patients with pulmonary function or comorbidities that were prohibitive for surgery. Of the remaining 24 patients with negative EBUS, 3 underwent mediastinoscopy and 2 had recalcitrant N2 disease. The remaining 22 patients underwent thoracotomy. Recalcitrant N2 disease was noted in 1 patient at thoracotomy in the EBUS-assessable nodal stations. Thus EBUS was falsely negative in 3 patients. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of restaging EBUS were 50% and 88%, respectively. Conclusions. Restaging EBUS is relatively accurate at predicting the absence of metastatic disease in N2 mediastinal lymph node in patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy for non-small cell lung cancer. (C) 2014 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