This systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesized data from studies involving 2357 patients with mediastinal and/or hilar lymphadenopathy. The authors compared three endobronchial ultrasound-guided techniques: transbronchial needle aspiration, transbronchial forceps biopsy, and transbronchial mediastinal cryobiopsy. The scope included lymphoma and sarcoidosis conditions. Primary outcomes focused on diagnostic yield, sensitivity, and negative predictive value.
Diagnostic yield varied significantly by method. EBUS-TBMC achieved 88.0%, whereas EBUS-TBFB yielded 77.1% and EBUS-TBNA resulted in 67.7%. For lymphoma specifically, EBUS-TBMC sensitivity was 94.1% versus 40.8% for EBUS-TBNA. Sensitivity for benign conditions also favored EBUS-TBMC at 87.9% compared to 55.2% for EBUS-TBNA. These differences highlight method performance.
The review noted the combination of EBUS-TBMC with EBUS-TBNA was significantly better than EBUS-TBNA alone. Safety data indicated the vast majority of complications were grade 1-2 bleeding, though serious adverse events were not reported. EBUS-TBMC was identified as the best single method for diagnosing sarcoidosis.
Practice relevance suggests EBUS-TBNA remains the established standard for lung cancer diagnosis among patients with mediastinal and/or hilar lymphadenopathy, while EBUS-TBMC demonstrates superior performance for benign entities and rare carcinomas. EBUS-TBFB plays a supplementary role. Follow-up duration was not reported. These findings inform diagnostic strategy selection.
View Original Abstract ↓
INTRODUCTION: Mediastinal and/or hilar lymphadenopathy (MHL) has become more frequently identified. Despite advances in endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided sampling, evidence on the optimal modality is lacking. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance and safety of different EBUS-guided sampling methods in MHL.
METHODS: This study was performed on published studies reporting the diagnostic performance and complications of EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), EBUS-guided transbronchial mediastinal cryobiopsy (EBUS-TBMC), EBUS-guided transbronchial forceps biopsy (EBUS-TBFB) to sample MHL. The outcomes included the diagnostic yield, diagnostic sensitivity, negative predictive value and complications. A frequentist random-effects model was employed to rank the diagnostic performance and safety for network meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed with stratification by disease.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with 2357 patients were included. EBUS-TBMC had the highest diagnostic yield, at 88.0%, surpassing EBUS-TBFB (77.1%) and EBUS-TBNA (67.7%). For lymphoma, EBUS-TBMC achieved a diagnostic sensitivity of 94.1%, substantially higher than EBUS-TBNA (40.8%). For benign conditions, EBUS-TBMC (87.9%) also outperformed EBUS-TBNA (55.2%). In the network meta-analysis, the combination of EBUS-TBMC with EBUS-TBNA was the most effective approach and was significantly better than EBUS-TBNA alone. EBUS-TBMC was the best single method for diagnosing sarcoidosis. EBUS sampling can be considered acceptably safe, with the vast majority of complications being grade 1-2 bleeding.
CONCLUSION: EBUS-TBNA remains the established standard for diagnosing lung cancer among patients with MHL. EBUS-TBMC demonstrates superior overall performance, particularly in the diagnosis of benign entities and rare carcinomas. EBUS-TBFB plays a supplementary role. All of the techniques exhibit an acceptable safety profile.