FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3206487275> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3206487275 endingPage "305" @default.
• W3206487275 startingPage "296" @default.
• W3206487275 abstract "Introduction: In recent years, there has been a growing development of molecularly targeted therapies for various types of solid tumors—in particular, in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This has required the need for greater quantities of tissue that is able to support ancillary studies, alongside cyto-histological diagnoses for the assessment of molecular targets. Conventional TBNA (cTBNA) and EBUS-guided TBNA (EBUS-TBNA) have shown a high diagnostic yield for malignant mediastinal and/or hilar lymph node enlargement and peribronchial masses; however, few studies have compared these two procedures. We retrospectively compared TBNA patients (EBUS-TBNA and cTBNA) in order to determine the diagnostic yield and material adequacy for subsequent ancillary analyses. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 318 patients with clinical suspicion of lung cancer or with disease recurrence. All of the patients underwent TBNA (either EBUS-TBNA or cTBNA) on enlarged mediastinal and/or hilar lymph nodes and peribronchial masses between January 2017 and June 2021 at the University Hospital of Pisa, Italy. After a definitive diagnosis, molecular analyses and an evaluation of PD-L1 expression were performed in the cases of adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and NSCLC, not otherwise specified (NOS). Results: EBUS-TBNA was performed in 199 patients and cTBNA was performed in 119 patients with 374 and 142 lymph nodes, respectively. The overall diagnostic yield for positive diagnoses was 59% (diagnostic rate of 61% in EBUS-TBNA, and 55% in cTBNA). Adenocarcinoma (ADC) was the most frequent diagnosis in both methods. EBUS-TBNA diagnostic adequacy was 72% for molecular analysis, while it was 55.5% for cTBNA, showing a statistical trend (p = 0.08) towards the significance of EBUS. The average percentage of neoplastic cells was also statistically different between the two methods (p = 0.05), reaching 51.19 ± 22.14 in EBUS-TBNA and 45.25 ± 22.84 in cTBNA. With regard to the PD-L1 protein expression, the percentage of positivity was similar in both procedures (86% in EBUS-TBNA, 85% in cTBNA). Conclusions: Conventional TBNA (cTBNA) and EBUS-guided TBNA (EBUS-TBNA) are minimally invasive diagnostic methods that are associated with a high diagnostic yield. However, EBUS-TBNA has an improved diagnostic adequacy for molecular analysis compared to cTBNA, and is associated with a higher average percentage of neoplastic cells." @default.
• W3206487275 created "2021-10-25" @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5002761212 @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5017474339 @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5031395790 @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5050138120 @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5052697026 @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5062859034 @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5065350820 @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5068503607 @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5076101177 @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5079703596 @default.
• W3206487275 creator A5084628474 @default.
• W3206487275 date "2021-10-09" @default.
• W3206487275 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W3206487275 title "Conventional Transbronchial Needle Aspiration (cTBNA) and EBUS-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration (EBUS-TBNA): A Retrospective Study on the Comparison of the Two Methods for Diagnostic Adequacy in Molecular Analysis" @default.
• W3206487275 cites W1541090799 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W1969722622 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2000469497 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2033336046 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2066968134 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2099268268 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2099814710 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2132157071 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2133299061 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2170552969 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2255615493 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2339631364 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2601854298 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2661673758 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2802801762 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2887554816 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2921769078 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W2967992516 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W3015629420 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W3088761818 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W3123818418 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W3126377951 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W3128646645 @default.
• W3206487275 cites W823055415 @default.
• W3206487275 doi "https://doi.org/10.3390/jmp2040025" @default.
• W3206487275 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3206487275 type Work @default.
• W3206487275 sameAs 3206487275 @default.
• W3206487275 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W3206487275 countsByYear W32064872752022 @default.
• W3206487275 countsByYear W32064872752023 @default.
• W3206487275 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5002761212 @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5017474339 @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5031395790 @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5050138120 @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5052697026 @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5062859034 @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5065350820 @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5068503607 @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5076101177 @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5079703596 @default.
• W3206487275 hasAuthorship W3206487275A5084628474 @default.
• W3206487275 hasBestOaLocation W32064872751 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C146357865 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C167135981 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C2776256026 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C2779013556 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C2780379385 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C2780849966 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C2781182431 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C534262118 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C121608353 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C126322002 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C126838900 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C142724271 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C146357865 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C151730666 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C167135981 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C2776256026 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C2779013556 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C2780379385 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C2780849966 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C2781182431 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C534262118 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C71924100 @default.
• W3206487275 hasConceptScore W3206487275C86803240 @default.
• W3206487275 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W3206487275 hasLocation W32064872751 @default.
• W3206487275 hasOpenAccess W3206487275 @default.
• W3206487275 hasPrimaryLocation W32064872751 @default.
• W3206487275 hasRelatedWork W1039593186 @default.
• W3206487275 hasRelatedWork W1641361056 @default.
• W3206487275 hasRelatedWork W2050044461 @default.
• W3206487275 hasRelatedWork W2339624776 @default.

• next