Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)

, Volume 188, Issue 1, pp 85–88 | Cite as

A retrospective analysis comparing the use of ProCore® with standard fine needle aspiration in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)

  • David J. McCrackenEmail author
  • Melanie Bailey
  • Marie-Therese McDermott
  • Terence E. McManus
Brief Report


Endobronchial ultrasound has become first line in the investigation of mediastinal lesions suspicious for malignancy in keeping with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines; however, needle size and type required to maximise diagnostic sensitivity remains unclear. Previous meta-analyses have compared the use of ProCore with standard fine needle aspiration in the assessment of pancreatic masses with differences noted only in the number of passes required. We aim to assess whether a ProCore needle improves diagnostic sensitivity in EBUS-TBNA. Complete follow-up data regarding all 235 patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA in a district general hospital has been collected since the service’s inception in 2012. Results were collated and retrospectively analysed allowing for calculation of test sensitivity and specificity. Comparison was then made between procedures where standard fine needle aspiration was performed and those using a ProCore needle. Overall sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA was shown to be 85% with a specificity of 100% in keeping with quoted figures from other centres. Standard fine needle aspiration produced a sensitivity of 77% (85/110) versus ProCore sensitivity of 92% (115/125) with a p value of 0.0016. Thirty percent (33/110) of patients undergoing standard fine needle aspiration required an appropriate crossover technique such as mediastinoscopy or CT-guided FNA in order to either obtain or confirm the diagnosis compared with 15% (19/125) of the ProCore group with a p value of 0.0064. Our retrospective analysis shows a statistically significant difference in the diagnostic sensitivity of sampling mediastinal lymphadenopathy using a ProCore needle compared with standard fine needle aspiration. It also shows that a significantly fewer number of patients required further procedures in order to obtain or confirm the diagnosis. This could potentially be confounded by the retrospective nature of the study design; however, due to the statistical significance demonstrated, further study is required.


EBUS Endobronchial ultrasound ProCore 


  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for mediastinal masses. NICE interventional procedure guidance [IPF254]. February 2008Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Navani N, Nankivell M, Lawrence DR, Lock S, Makker H, Baldwin DR, Stephens RJ, Parmar MK, Spiro SG, Morris S, Janes SM, Lung-BOOST trial investigators (2015) Lung cancer diagnosis and staging with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration compared with conventional approaches: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 3(4):282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Silvestri GA, Gonzalez AV, Jantz MA, Margolis ML, Gould MK, Tanoue LT, Harris LJ, Detterbeck FC (2013) Methods for staging non-small cell lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 143(suppl):e211S–e250SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dincer HE, Andrade R, Zamora F, Podgaetz E (2016) A new needle on the block: EchoTip ProCore endobronchial ultrasound needle. Med Devices 9:467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bang JY, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S (2016) A meta-anlysis comparing ProCore and standard fine-needle aspiration needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Endoscopy 48(4):229–249Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wahidi MM, Herth F, Yasufuku K, Shepherd RW, Yarmus L, Chawla M, Lamb C, Casey KR, Patel S, Silvestri GA, Feller-Kopman DJ (2016) Technical aspects of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: chest guideline and expert panel report. Chest 149(3):816–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee HS, Lee GK, Lee HS, Kim MS, Lee JM, Kim HY, Nam BH, Zo JI, Hwangbo B (2008) Real-time endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in mediastinal staging of non-small cell lung cancer: how many aspirations per target lymph node station? Chest 134(2):368–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xing J, Manos S, Monaco SE, Wilson DO, Pantanowitz L (2016) Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a pilot study to evaluate the utility of the ProCore biopsy needle for lymph node sampling. Acta Cytol 60:254–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Witt BL, Adler DG, Hilden K, Layfield LJ (2013) A comparative needle study: EUS-FNA procedures using the HD ProCoreTM and EchoTipVR 22-gauge needle types. Diagn Cytopathol 41(12):1069–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oki M, Saka H, Kitagawa C, Kogure Y, Murata N, Ichihara S, Moritani S, Ando M (2011) Randomized study of 21-gauge versus 22-gauge endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration needles for sampling histology specimens. J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol 18(4):306–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeyabalan A, Shelley-Fraser G, Medford AR (2014) Impact of needle gauge on characterization of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) histology samples. Respirology 19(5):735–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South West Acute HospitalEnniskillenUK

Personalised recommendations