Randomized Trial of Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration With and Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Lung Cancer Genotyping.

BACKGROUND: Experts and scientific society guidelines recommend that rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) be used with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) to optimize lung cancer genotyping, but no comparative trial has been carried out to confirm and quantify its usefulness. METHODS: To assess the influence of ROSE on the yield of EBUS-TBNA for a multigene molecular analysis of lung cancer samples, consecutive patients with suspected or known advanced lung cancer were randomized to undergo EBUS-TBNA without ROSE (EBUS arm) or with ROSE (ROSE arm). The primary end point was the rate of the successful accomplishment of the institution's clinical protocol for molecular profiling of nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (EGFR and KRAS testing, followed by ALK testing for tumors with EGFR and KRAS wild-type status). RESULTS: Complete genotyping was achieved in 108 of 126 patients (85.7%) (90.8% in the ROSE arm vs 80.3% in the EBUS arm, P = .09). The patients in the ROSE arm were less likely to have samples that could be used only for pathologic diagnosis because of minimal tumor burden (0 vs 6, P = .05), and were more likely to have the bronchoscopy terminated after a single biopsy site (58.9% vs 44.1%, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: ROSE prevents the need for a repeat invasive diagnostic procedure aimed at molecular profiling in at least one out of 10 patients with advanced lung cancer and significantly reduces the risk of retrieving samples that can be used only for pathologic subtyping because of minimal tumor burden. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01799382; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

The reproducibility of CIN diagnoses among different pathologists: data from histology reviews from a multicenter randomized study.

The reproducibility of cervical histology diagnoses is critical for efficient screening and to evaluate the effectiveness of new technologies. The vast majority of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) diagnoses reported in the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer study were blindly reviewed by 2 independent pathologists. Only H&E-stained slides were used for the review. The reviewers were asked to reclassify cases using the following categories: normal CIN 1, CIN 2, CIN 3, and squamous and glandular invasive cancer. We reviewed 1,003 cases. The interobserver agreement was 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.40) with an unweighted kappa and 0.54 with a weighted kappa (95% CI, 0.50-0.58). The kappa values from dichotomous classifications with the threshold at CIN 2 were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.73) and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.51-0.63) with the threshold at CIN 3. The CIN 2 diagnosis had the lowest class-specific agreement, with fewer than 50% of cases confirmed by the panel members, which supports the fact that CIN 2 is not a well-defined stage in the pathogenesis of cervical neoplasia.

The risk of false-positive histology according to the reason for colposcopy referral in cervical cancer screening: a blind revision of all histologic lesions found in the NTCC trial.

All cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) diagnoses identified during the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer trial (ISRCTN81678807) were blindly reviewed by 2 pathologists. Original diagnoses based on colposcopy-guided biopsies were compared with those made by the reviewers who had access to all clinical histologic samples (including postsurgical). Cases downgraded from CIN 2+ by the reviewers were considered indicative of unnecessary treatments. The analyses are presented according to the molecular (high-risk human papillomavirus [HPV]) and/or cytologic diagnosis used to refer the women for colposcopy. We reviewed 812 CIN 1 and 364 CIN 2 + diagnoses. The specificity of colposcopy-guided biopsy was 98% and the sensitivity, 84%. The probability of unnecessary treatment was 27% for women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance cytologic findings and 8% for women with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse, 10% for HPV+ and positive cytologic findings, and 16% for HPV+ alone. The positive predictive value of the first-level screening test was inversely associated with probability of a histologic false-positive result (P = .015). In screening, a low positive predictive value of the colposcopy-referring test may result in unnecessary treatments.