Leftover aspirated material in the EBUS-TBNA suction syringe improves diagnostic yield: A prospective study
- Journal
- Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease (Q1)
- Published
- 4 November 2026
- Study design
- Cohort / observational study
- Evidence level
- Level 3, Low (CEBM 3b)
- Authors
- Hadas Gilboa-Sagy, David Shitrit, Elad Guber, Andy Eyre, Gali Epstein Shochet, Ayal Romem
- PMID
- 42981486
- DOI
- 10.1177/17534666261483936
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Pathology and Forensic Medicine (top studies of the week, 8 November 2026): Prospective cytology study improves EBUS-TBNA diagnostic yield
Abstract
BackgroundDuring endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), visible aspirated material may accumulate in the suction syringe but is typically discarded.ObjectiveTo assess whether cytological examination of suction-syringe aspirate improves the diagnostic performance of EBUS-TBNA.DesignProspective, single-center, paired-sample diagnostic study.MethodsPooled aspirated material was preserved in formalin and analyzed cytologically alongside routine EBUS-TBNA specimens. Diagnostic yield, adequacy, and accuracy were compared with/without syringe aspirate analysis.ResultsAmong 355 screened patients, 151 (42.5%) had visible syringe aspirate and were included. Adding syringe aspirate increased diagnostic yield from 58.3% to 62.9% (+4.6%, p=0.016). Sample adequacy remained unchanged (98.7%). Accuracy for excluding malignancy improved from 85.4% to 88.1%, although not significantly (p=0.125). Concordance between TBNA and syringe samples was 87.9%. Seven diagnoses, including four malignancies, were established exclusively from syringe aspirate.ConclusionCytological analysis of suction-syringe aspirate modestly but significantly enhances EBUS-TBNA diagnostic yield and should be considered in routine practice.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.