Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 25, 2025
Use of Electromagnetic Navigational Transthoracic Needle Aspiration E-TTNA for Sampling of Lung Nodules
Published on: May 23, 2015
Diagnostic Performance and Cell Count of EBUS-TBNA Needle Gauges: A Prospective Trial
Juliana Guarize1, Cristina Diotti2, Monica Casiraghi2,3
1Interventional Pulmonology Unit, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy.
Background:
Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a well-established diagnostic procedure for evaluating hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathies and is the gold standard for lung cancer diagnosis and staging. Recent studies assessed the effectiveness of the 19-G flex needle in obtaining larger EBUS-TBNA samples, and prospective small series gave similar results in terms of diagnostic yield when testing different gauge needles. The lack of homogeneity between series and the small sample size of some prospective cohorts poses a limit to the validity of those results. This prospective controlled study compared the 19-G flex and 22-G needles in terms of diagnostic yield. An objective laboratory method was used to count cells and compare the two needles' cytologic yields.
Material:
A prospective controlled study was conducted on 90 patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA for the diagnosis of hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathies. The institutional ethic committee (IEO573) approved the study, and informed consent was obtained from all patients.
Results:
A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study, 84.4% of whom were diagnosed with malignancy and 15.6% with non-neoplastic disease. Sensitivity for malignancy was 93.4% (CI: 87.4-97.1%) for the 19-G needle and 92.6% (CI: 86.3-96.5%) for the 22-G needle (p = 0.80). The percentage of malignant cells in the cell block was 63.9% and 61.5% for the 22-G and 19-G needles, respectively. The cell count assessed by flow cytometry was 2071 cells/µL (IQR: 600,2265) with the 22-G needle and 2761 cells/µL (IQR: 505,3250) with the 19-G needle (p = 0.79). The malignant cell count was 0.05 × 103 cells/µL with the 22-G and 0.08 × 103 cells/µL with the 19-G needle (p = 0.70). There was no difference in the presence of tissue cores in the samples, and rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) cellularity was comparable between the two needles.
Conclusions:
The 19-G flex EBUS-TBNA needle is comparable to the 22-G needle in terms of diagnostic yield for cyto-histological evaluation of hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathies. There is no difference between the 19-G and 22-G needle cell counts evaluated by flow cytometry.
