ArticleCancer medicine2023
Comparison of the slow-pull and aspiration methods of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for next-generation sequencing-compatible tissue collection in non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of three different puncture techniques for endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration: a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Trial
- Clinical Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) and Endobronchial Ultrasound (EBUS) in the Evaluation of Mediastinal Lymphadenopathy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy of lung cancer using endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersonalized treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has advanced rapidly, and elucidating the genetic changes that trigger this disease is crucial for appropriate treatment selection. Both slow-pull and aspiration methods of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are accepted methods for collecting samples suitable for next-generation sequencing (NGS) to examine driver gene mutations and translocations in NSCLC. Here, we aimed to determine which of these two methods is superior for obtaining higher-quality samples from patients with NSCLC.
methodsSeventy-one patients diagnosed with NSCLC via EBUS-TBNA using the slow-pull or aspiration (20-mL negative pressure) methods between July 2019 and September 2022 were included. A total of 203 tissue samples from the 71 patients were fixed in formalin, embedded in paraffin, and mounted on slides. The presence of tissue cores, degree of blood contamination, and number of tumor cells were compared between the groups. The success rate of NGS, using Oncomine Dx Target Test Multi-CDx, was also compared between the groups.
resultsThe slow-pull method was associated with a higher yield of tissue cores, lower degree of blood contamination, and higher number of tumor cells than the aspiration method. The success rate of the NGS was also significantly higher for the slow-pull group (95%) than for the aspiration group (68%).
conclusionOverall, these findings suggest that the slow-pull method is a superior technique for EBUS-TBNA to obtain high-quality tissue samples for NGS. The slow-pull method may contribute to the identification of driver gene mutations and translocations and facilitate personalized treatment of NSCLC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.