Scholarlink

Introduction <p><?tk 2?>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.</p> Methods <p><?tk 2?>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.</p> Results <p><?tk 2?>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.</p> Conclusion <p><?tk 2?>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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Diagnostic Performance and Safety of Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Mediastinal/Hilar Lymphadenopathy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月27日

查看全文
  • Shuping Lyu,
  • Ziwen Zheng,
  • Junwei Guo,
  • Xiaoya Yu,
  • Xiaoguo Feng,
  • Mingming Deng,
  • Venerino Poletti,
  • Gang Hou

摘要

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.