ArticleLung2019
Bronchoscopic Brushing from Central Lung Cancer-Next Generation Sequencing Results are Reliable.
Article in Lung, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of Multiparameter MRI-Guided Percutaneous Biopsy for Central Lung Lesions With Atelectasis.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Suitability of frozen cell pellets from cytology specimens for the Amoy 9-in-1 assay in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
- Suitability of transbronchial brushing cytology specimens for next-generation sequencing in peripheral lung cancer.Cancer science · 2021Article
- Bronchoscopic tissue yield for advanced molecular testing: are we getting enough?Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- [Immunohistochemical and molecular pathological diagnosis of lung carcinoma].Der Pathologe · 2020Review
- [Molecular diagnostics of cytological specimens].Der Pathologe · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of bronchoscopic brushing for tumor detection and molecular testing in central lung cancer is unclear. In this study, 50 consecutive subjects with suspected central lung cancer underwent bronchoscopic brushing (31 males, median age 70, 5 never smokers). Histological results were: NSCLC/SCLC/low-grade-NET/granulation tissue in 36/8/2/4 cases. Next generation sequencing (NGS) was feasible in 62% of tumor-positive brush smear samples. In 78% of these cases, NGS displayed identical results compared to histology samples, in 22% NGS from brush smears detected specific mutations, whereas DNA quality from forceps biopsy was insufficient for NGS analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value of brush smear analysis were 66% (95% confidence interval 50-79), 100% (40-100), 100% (85-100), and 21% (7-46). For the combined analysis of brush smear, brush tip washing and sheath tube content sensitivity was slightly elevated at 69% (53-81). In central lung cancer, bronchoscopic brushing detects tumor cells in about two-third of cases and allows a decision for or against targeted therapy in the majority of tumor-positive cases on the basis of NGS analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30824994What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.