Clinical utilization of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)

to stage lung cancer

Francisco A. Almeida, MD, MS, FCCPAssociate Staff Member

Respiratory InstituteCleveland Clinic

Clinical utilization of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)

to stage lung cancer

• No conflicts of interest

EBUS staging in NSCLC

RADIAL-PROBE EBUS

CONVEX-PROBE EBUS

EBUS staging in NSCLC

Lymph node map and lung cancer staging

Rusch V, Asamura H, Watanabe H et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2009;4: 568–577

IASLC Lymph node map

Detterbeck F, Postmus P, Tanoue L. Chest 2013: 143(5)(Suppl):e191S–e210S

Yasufuku K, Nakajima T, Motoori K et al. Chest 2006;130;710-718

EBUS vs Mediastinoscopy

• Prospective, crossover trial

• Consecutive subjects with clinically suspected NSCLC

• Inclusion criteria:

- Resectable disease

- PET not used and histology unconfirmed at enrollment

- Mediastinal adenopathy (10 mm) on CT had to be confined to lymph node stations 2, 4 or 7

J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:577-582

• EBUS performed as separate procedure 1 week before mediastinoscopy or at the time of mediastinoscopy

• Only pathologically enlarged nodes on CT biopsied

• Two passes only

• NO ROSE

• Patients with negative EBUS-TBNA and mediastinoscopy: surgical resection

J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:577-582

J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:577-582

• 66 pts met inclusion criteria

• 120 enlarged nodes

• Mean large node/patient: 1.8 ± 0.1 (1–4)

• 51 pts had surgery

• Overall agreement: 78%

• Sensitivities:

- EBUS: 87%- Mediastinoscopy: 68%

• In a per patient analysis, the overall diagnostic yield:

- EBUS-TBNA was 59/66 (89%)- Mediastinoscopy was 52/66 (79%; p 0.1)

• Prediction of correct pathologic N stage in the 57 patients with NSCLC:

- EBUS-TBNA: 53/57 (93%) - Mediastinoscopy: 47/57 (82%; p 0.083)

J Thorac Oncol 2008;3:577-582

Annema T, van Meerbeeck J, Rintoul R et al. JAMA 2010; 304(20):2245-2252

• Eligibility: patients with potentially resectable NSCLC and indication for mediastinal nodal sampling

- mediastinal nodes with short axis ≥ 10 mm

- PET-positive mediastinal or hilar nodes

- centrally located lung tumor

• 4 participating European hospitals

Annema T, van Meerbeeck J, Rintoul R et al. JAMA 2010; 304(20):2245-2252

• Patients randomly assigned (1:1) to either

- surgical staging alone (surgical staging group: mediastinoscopy)

- endosonography (combined EUS-FNA and EBUS-TBNA) followed by surgical staging if no nodal metastases

• Patients without evidence of mediastinal Dz following surgical staging in either study group:

- thoracotomy with complete lymph node dissection was performed

• Endosonography of the mediastinum: under moderate sedation

Annema T, van Meerbeeck J, Rintoul R et al. JAMA 2010; 304(20):2245-2252

• Surgical staging- Sensitivity: 79% (41/52; 95% CI, 66%-88%)- NPV: 86% (66/77; 95% CI, 76-92%)

• Endosonographic staging- Sensitivity: 85% (56/66; 95% CI, 74%-92%)- NPV: 85% (57/67; 95% CI, 75-92%)

(p > .99)

Annema T, van Meerbeeck J, Rintoul R et al. JAMA 2010; 304(20):2245-2252

• Prospective, controlled trial performed in patients with confirmed or suspected NSCLC who required a mediastinoscopy

• Patients were candidates for surgical resection

• Under general anesthesia: EBUS staging followed by mediastinoscopy on the same setting

• Operator was blinded to EBUS on-site results

• If path negative for N2 or N3 Dz after EBUS and mediastinoscopy: thoracotomy with nodal dissection at the same setting of later

Yasufuku K, MPierre A, Gail Darling G et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142(6):1393-1400

Yasufuku K, MPierre A, Gail Darling G et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142(6):1393-1400

Yasufuku K, MPierre A, Gail Darling G et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142(6):1393-1400

• Mean short axis of the nodes Bx’ed by EBUS-TBNA: 6.9 ± 2.9 mm

• False-negative: 8 on EBUS-TBNA vs 14 on mediastinoscopy

• Sensitivity, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy:

- EBUS-TBNA: 81%, 91%, 93%

- Mediastinoscopy: 79%, 90%, 93% (McNemar’s test, P=.78)

• Minor complications from mediastinoscopy observed in 4 patients (2.6%) (hematoma in 2, left recurrent nerve injury in 1, and wound infection in 1)

Yasufuku K, MPierre A, Gail Darling G et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142(6):1393-1400

EBUS and PET-CT

78 out of 102 study patients underwent surgery

Chest 2006;130;710-718

p < 0.00001

EBUS-TBNA results:

• Small cell lung cancer in 9 (12%)

• Adenocarcinoma in 25 (33%)

• Squamous cell carcinoma in 20 (25%)

• Non small cell lung cancer (unspecified) in 23 (30%) cases

• In 42 (55%) of the 77 cases EBUS-TBNA showed malignancy: primary tissue diagnosis in addition to giving staging information

J Thorac Oncol 2009;4:44-48

For the 96 cases with definitive reference pathology, the EBUS-TBNA per patient basis:

• Sensitivity: 91% (95% CI 82–95)

• Diagnostic accuracy: 92%

• Specificity: 100% (95% CI 73–100), assuming no FP

• PPV: 100% (95% CI 95–100)

• NPV: 60% (95% CI 36–80)

• EBUS-TBNA obviated the need for further surgical staging procedures in 71%

J Thorac Oncol 2009;4:44-48

Chest 2009;135;1280-1287

Chest 2009;135;1280-1287

Normal mediastinum on PET/CT in 61 patients: 9 found to havemediastinal metastasis, 6 on EBUS-TBNASensitivity 75%; Specificity 100%; NPV 94%

• Stations 2, 4, 7, 10, and 11: short-axis diameter measured in 97 pts

• All visualized nodes 5 to 10 mm were punctured TWICE: 7.9 ± 0.7 mm

• Sensitivity: 89%

• Specificity: 100%

• NPV: 99%

Chest 2008;133;887-891

Missed by EBUS-TBNA

EBUS scope for “complete” mediastinal staging

Chest 2010; 138:795-802

Combining EUS-B-FNA + EBUS-TBNA: the proportion of accessible mediastinal nodal stations was increased from 78.6% (372/473) to 84.8% (401/473) (p=0.015)

Chest 2010; 138:790-794

EBUS: meta-analysis

Adams K, Shah PL, Edmonds L et al. Thorax 2009;64:757-762Gu P, Zhao Y, Jiang L et al. Eur J Cancer 2009;45(8):1389-1396

EBUS vs other invasive tests in lung cancer:

- diagnosis and staging

Almeida F, Casal R, Jimenez C et al, Chest, in press

64%

Almeida F, Casal R, Jimenez C et al, Chest, in press

EBUS and NSCLC subtyping and biomarkers

Navani N, Brown JM, Nankivel M et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012;185(12):1316-1322

Data not described:-434 final EBUS cancer Dx-Specific subtype in 333 (76.7%)

Esterbrooka G, Anathhanama S, Plantb PK. Lung Cancer 2013;80(1):30-34

Specific subtype in NSCLC:- 118 of 149 (79.2%)

EBUS and Biomarkers

EGFR gene mutation analysis

•EBUS-TBNA samples of metastatic AdenoCA of hilar and/or mediastinal lymph node from 156 patients1

- Recut sections of the paraffin-embedded samples yielded tumor cells in 154

- EGFR positive in 42 (26.9%)

- “Enough” tumor for other testing (113): 4 with K-ras and 47 with p53

•EGFR gene analysis feasible in 26 (72.2%) out of the 36 patients2

- EGFR positive in 2 out of 20 patients with adenocarcinoma

1. Nakajima T, Yasufuku K, Nakagawara A et al. Chest; Prepublished online April 28, 2011; DOI 10.1378/chest. 10-31862. Garcia-Olive I, Monso E, Andreo F et al. Eur Respir J 2010; 35: 391-395

EBUS and Biomarkers

EML4-ALK Fusion Gene Assessment: FISH

•EML4-ALK Fusion Gene Assessment in “metastatic” lymph nodes1

- Re-sliced specimens for histologic examination available in 109 out 112

- ALK positive in 7: all adenoCA and EGFR negative

•EML4-ALK Fusion Gene Assessment in lymph nodes showing adenocarcinoma or NSCLC NOS and negative for EGFR2

- FISH analysis successful in 52 of 55 samples (94.5%)

- ALK positive in 3 of 52 (5.7%)

1. Sakairi Y, Nakajima T, Yasufuku K et al. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:4938-49452. Neat MJ, Foot NJ, Hicks A et al. Cytopathology 2013 doi: 10.1111/cyt.12060. [Epub ahead of print]

• EBUS-TBNA, EUS-FNA and histological samples available in 43 patients

- KRAS mutation: 6 patients

- EGFR mutation: 1 patient

- PIK3CA mutation: 1 patient

• 100% concordance between cytological and histological specimens

PLoS ONE 6(3): e17791. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017791

EBUS, ROSE and needle gauge

Oki M, Saka H, Kitagawa C et al. Respiration 2013 [Epub ahead of print]

EBUS: 21g vs 22g needle

Oki M, MD, Saka H, Kitagawa C et al. J Bronchol Intervent Pulmonol 2011;18:306-310Nakajima T, Yasufuku, Takahashi R et al. Respirology 2011; 16:90-94

EBUS: 21g vs 22g needle

Yarmus L , Akulian J, Lechtzin N et al. CHEST 2013; 143(4):1036-1043

EBUS and ultrasound characteristics

J Bronchol Intervent Pulmonol 2011;18:322-328

• Lack of CIV: increase in the likelihood of malignancy [OR, 49.7; 95% confidence interval, 15.1-163.9]

• Presence of a CIV for benign cytology

- Sensitivity: 83.0%

- Specificity: 91.1%

• PPV of CIV predicting nonmalignant cytology: 88.6%

• The presence or absence of a CIV accurately predicted cytology results in 90 out of the 103 LNs sampled (87.4%).

J Bronchol Intervent Pulmonol 2011;18:322–328

CHEST 2010; 138(3):641-647

CHEST 2010; 138(3):641-647

Initial Lung Cancer Evaluation

Curr Opin Pulm Med 2010; 16(4):307-14

Summary

• EBUS and mediastinoscopy: both superior to current imaging modalities for NSCLC mediastinal staging

• EBUS and mediastinoscopy appear to be equivalent for mediastinal staging of NSCLC patients: local expertise defines choice

• Standard bronchoscopy + EBUS probably the ideal initial test for diagnosis and staging of lung cancers radiographically limited to the chest

Summary

• Nodal sonographic characteristics not ready for primetime but may add to EBUS staging (will it increase sensitivity?)

• EBUS alone (in expert hands) is sufficient for the MAJORITY of mediastinal staging cases:

- Combined EBUS and mediastinoscopy provides best yield, and should be viewed as complimentary

• Role of cytology (EBUS) in minimally invasive lung cancer staging is extremely important

- Likely to become the norm in many centers