Background The accuracy, the safety, and the cost-effectiveness of EUS-guided FNA for screening patients with lung cancer for mediastinal metastasis are well established, but the utility of EUS-guided FNA in evaluatin...Background The accuracy, the safety, and the cost-effectiveness of EUS-guided FNA for screening patients with lung cancer for mediastinal metastasis are well established, but the utility of EUS-guided FNA in evaluating lung mass per se has not been investigated. This study retrospectively evaluated experience with EUS-guided FNA of lung mass lesions after unsuccessful attempts by CT-guided or bronchoscopic tissue sampling to establish a tissue diagnosis. Methods A database was searched for all patients who had EUS-guided FNA of lung mass lesions over a 3-year period. The diagnostic yield and safety of EUS guided FNA were evaluated. Observations Eighteen patients(11 men, 7 women) underwent EUS-guided FNA of lung mass lesions adjacent to or abutting the esophagus. The indication for EUS-guided FNA was evaluation of the mediastinum of patients with lung mass of unclear etiology. EUS-guided FNA yielded tissue for diagnosis in 100% of patients: 15 non-small-cell lung cancer, one small-cell lung cancer, two metastatic lung disease. Ten patients had unresectable disease; in 8, the mass was confined to the lung parenchyma. The mean number of needle passes required to establish a diagnosis was two (range 1-6). No complication was encountered (mean follow-up 141 days; range 72-396 days). Five patients underwent curative surgery, and 13 had palliative chemoradiation. Conclusions In this study, EUS-guided FNA of lung mass was safe, and it established a diagnosis in all patients with accessible lesions.Given these preliminary data, a prospective evaluation of this new indication for EUS-guided FNA is justified.展开更多
文摘Background The accuracy, the safety, and the cost-effectiveness of EUS-guided FNA for screening patients with lung cancer for mediastinal metastasis are well established, but the utility of EUS-guided FNA in evaluating lung mass per se has not been investigated. This study retrospectively evaluated experience with EUS-guided FNA of lung mass lesions after unsuccessful attempts by CT-guided or bronchoscopic tissue sampling to establish a tissue diagnosis. Methods A database was searched for all patients who had EUS-guided FNA of lung mass lesions over a 3-year period. The diagnostic yield and safety of EUS guided FNA were evaluated. Observations Eighteen patients(11 men, 7 women) underwent EUS-guided FNA of lung mass lesions adjacent to or abutting the esophagus. The indication for EUS-guided FNA was evaluation of the mediastinum of patients with lung mass of unclear etiology. EUS-guided FNA yielded tissue for diagnosis in 100% of patients: 15 non-small-cell lung cancer, one small-cell lung cancer, two metastatic lung disease. Ten patients had unresectable disease; in 8, the mass was confined to the lung parenchyma. The mean number of needle passes required to establish a diagnosis was two (range 1-6). No complication was encountered (mean follow-up 141 days; range 72-396 days). Five patients underwent curative surgery, and 13 had palliative chemoradiation. Conclusions In this study, EUS-guided FNA of lung mass was safe, and it established a diagnosis in all patients with accessible lesions.Given these preliminary data, a prospective evaluation of this new indication for EUS-guided FNA is justified.
