Summary:
Background : Despite the advances in imaging techniques
and treatment modalities, the prognosis of lung cancer
remains poor, with five-year survival of 14% at early stages
and less than 5% in locally advanced stages. Before starting
treatment a clear distinction between small cell and nonsmall
cell carcinoma must be made, for that histopathology
remains the mainstay of confirmation of diagnosis. To combat
the disease successfully, it should be diagnosed at earliest
possible stage. If bronchial brush cytology yield comparable
diagnostic specificity, then it may easy for the patient and
physician to manage this fatal disease.
Purpose : The study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic
yield of bronchial brush cytology in central (endoscopically
visible) bronchial carcinoma
Subjects and methods: This cross sectional study was done
in the Department of Medicine, and Respiratory Medicine
units of Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College Hospital,
Sylhet during the period from July 2012 to June 2014.Thirty
seven patients with clinically suspected bronchial carcinoma
were enrolled in this study fulfilling the inclusion and
exclusion criteria. In all cases bronchial brush cytology and
endo-bronchial biopsy were performed and results of both
techniques were compared
Reasults: The mean age of the patients with bronchial
carcinoma was 59.65 (SD 12.95) years; 28 (75.7%) patients
were 51 years or above with a ratio of male to female of
17.5:1. The sensitivity of bronchial brush cytology in the
diagnosis of central bronchial carcinoma was 89.2% and
that of endobronchial biopsy was 67.6%, no true negative
cases were detected. Five (13.5%) patients developed
respiratory distress and minor bleeding in 4 (10.8%) as a
complications of bronchoscopy procedure.
Conclusion: The diagnostic yield of bronchial brush cytology
is non inferior to than that of endobronchial biopsy in the
diagnosis of central bronchial carcinoma.
key words: Bronchial brush cytology, Endobronchial biopsy,
Central bronchial carcinoma.
(J Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg 2017; 35: 68-74)