Comparison of the slow‐pull and aspiration methods of endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration for next‐generation sequencing‐compatible tissue collection in non‐small cell lung cancer

Abstract

BackgroundPersonalized treatment for non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has advanced rapidly, and elucidating the genetic changes that trigger this disease is crucial for appropriate treatment selection. Both slow‐pull and aspiration methods of endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA) are accepted methods for collecting samples suitable for next‐generation sequencing (NGS) to examine driver gene mutations and translocations in NSCLC. Here, we aimed to determine which of these two methods is superior for obtaining higher‐quality samples from patients with NSCLC.MethodsSeventy‐one patients diagnosed with NSCLC via EBUS‐TBNA using the slow‐pull or aspiration (20‐mL negative pressure) methods between July 2019 and September 2022 were included. A total of 203 tissue samples from the 71 patients were fixed in formalin, embedded in paraffin, and mounted on slides. The presence of tissue cores, degree of blood contamination, and number of tumor cells were compared between the groups. The success rate of NGS, using Oncomine Dx Target Test Multi‐CDx, was also compared between the groups.ResultsThe slow‐pull method was associated with a higher yield of tissue cores, lower degree of blood contamination, and higher number of tumor cells than the aspiration method. The success rate of the NGS was also significantly higher for the slow‐pull group (95%) than for the aspiration group (68%).ConclusionOverall, these findings suggest that the slow‐pull method is a superior technique for EBUS‐TBNA to obtain high‐quality tissue samples for NGS. The slow‐pull method may contribute to the identification of driver gene mutations and translocations and facilitate personalized treatment of NSCLC.