A comparison of conventional transbronchial vs endobronchial, endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle aspiration in the diagnosis of XXXX : a randomized trial.

@entity1 @entity370 @entity10070
UNASSIGNED: INTRODUCTION Bioptic endoscopic techniques are useful in the diagnosis of @entity370 . There is need for randomized trials to establish proper place for this procedures in the diagnosis of @entity370 . OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic yield of conventional transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) vs endobronchial (EBUS-TBNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in stage I/II of @entity10070 . @entity1 AND METHODS  In @entity1 suspected of @entity370 an open-label randomized study TBNA or EBUS-TBNA or EUS-FNA were performed. Negative TBNA and EBUS-TBNA @entity1 underwent EUS-FNA, negative EUS-FNA @entity1 underwent EBUS-TBNA. If both were negative, @entity1 in stage I were scheduled for mediastinoscopy (MS) and in stage II for transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB). RESULTS  In 100 @entity1 34 TBNA, 30 EBUS-TBNA and 36 EUS-FNA were performed primarily. TBNA was positive in 20 (58.8%), EBUS-TBNA in 23 (76.7%) and EUS-FNA in 31 (86.1%) @entity1 . For negative biopsy results a second procedure was performed. EUS-FNA was positive in 9 @entity1 and EBUS-TBNA in none. In 17 @entity1 negative for both methods MS was performed in 6 and was positive in 2 of them. In remaining 11 @entity1 TBLB was positive. Sensitivity and accuracy of TBNA vs EBUS-TBNA vs EUS-FNA were 62.5%, 64.7% vs 79.3%, 80% vs 88.6%, 88.9%, respectively. Sensitivity and accuracy of EBUS-TBNA were higher (P = 0.139) and EUS-FNA significantly higher comparing with TBNA (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS  In stage I /II of @entity10070 endoechosonography is a reasonable approach but EUS-FNA seems to be the method of choice.
