Circulating cell‐free microRNAs (miRNAs) are potential cancer biomarkers. The aim of this study was to identify miRNAs that are differentially expressed between benign pleural effusion (BPE) and lung adenocarcinoma‐associated malignant pleural effusion (LA‐MPE). The expression level of cell‐free miRNA was investigated in 107 patients with pleural effusion. Microarrays were used to screen 160 miRNAs in a discovery set comprising 20 effusion samples (ten BPEs and ten LA‐MPEs). Real‐time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT‐PCR) was used to validate the profiling results obtained for the discovery set and those obtained for a validation set comprising 42 BPEs and 45 LA‐MPEs. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the identified miRNAs and other common tumor markers, such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cytokeratin fragment (CYFRA) 21‐1. Microarray profiling showed that miR‐198 was significantly downregulated in LA‐MPE compared with BPE (p = 0.002). The miRNA microarray analysis results were confirmed by qRT‐PCR (p < 0.001) using the validation set. The AUCs for miR‐198, CEA and CYFRA 21‐1 in the validation set were 0.887, 0.898 and 0.836, respectively. The diagnostic performance of miR‐198 was comparable with that of CEA, but better than that of CYFRA 21‐1. The AUC for all three markers combined was 0.926 (95% confidence interval, 0.843–0.973) with a sensitivity of 89.2% and a specificity of 85.0%. The present study suggests that cell‐free miR‐198 from patients with pleural effusion might have diagnostic potential for differentiating LA‐MPE from BPE.

Although remimazolam is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine with a shorter elimination half-life and faster recovery time than midazolam, studies evaluating its safety and efficacy during bronchoscopy are limited. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of remimazolam with those of midazolam for bronchoscopy. This prospective randomized parallel-group study was conducted at a single institution. The primary outcome was the time from the end of the procedure to full alertness. Other procedural time parameters, satisfaction profiles, and adverse effects were thoroughly evaluated. The time taken to reach peak sedation and the time from the end of the procedure to full alertness was significantly shorter in the remimazolam group than in the midazolam group (median [interquartile range], 2 min [1–4] vs. 3 min [2–5], P = 0.006; and median, 2 min [1–5] vs. 5 min [1–12], P = 0.035, respectively). In patients with non-biopsy procedures (n = 79), participant satisfaction was significantly higher in the remimazolam group than in the midazolam group (median rated scale, 10 vs. 7, P = 0.042). Physician satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure were similar between groups. Although the incidence of adverse effects was similar between the groups and there was no significant difference, the midazolam group had a higher antidote administration rate than the remimazolam group (15.7% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.092). Remimazolam is effective and safe for achieving adequate sedation, with a shorter onset time and faster neuropsychiatric recovery than midazolam. It may be a new option for sedation during bronchoscopy.Trial registration: The trial registration number is NCT05994547, and the date of first registration is 16/08/2023.

Lee TH, et al. Clin Endosc. 2013 Sep;46(5):522-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2013.46.5.522

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUSFNA) and brushing cytology are used worldwide to diagnose pancreatic and biliary malignant tumors. Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been developed and it is currently used to overcome the limitations of conventional smears (CS). In this study, the authors aimed to compare the diagnostic value of the CellPrepPlus (CP; Biodyne) LBC method with CS in samples obtained using EUS-FNA and brushing cytology. This study prospectively enrolled 75 patients with pancreatic or biliary lesions from June 2012 to October 2013. For cytological analyses, including inadequate specimens, benign and atypical were further classified into benign, and suspicious and malignant were subcategorized as malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were evaluated. In the EUS-FNA based cytological analysis of pancreatic specimens, CP had a sensitivity of 60.7%; specificity, 100%; accuracy, 77.1%; PPV, 100%; and NPV, 64.5%. CS had a sensitivity of 85.7%; specificity, 100%; accuracy, 91.7%; PPV, 100%; and NPV, 83.3%. In the brushing cytology based analysis of biliary specimens, CP had sensitivity of 53.1%; specificity, 100%; accuracy, 54.5%; PPV, 100%; and NPV, 6.3%. CS had a sensitivity of 78.1%; specificity, 100%; accuracy, 78.8%; PPV, 100%; and NPV, 12.5%. Our study found that CP had a lower sensitivity because of low cellularity compared with CS. Therefore, CP (LBC) has a lower diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic EUS-FNA based and biliary brush cytology based analyses compared with CS.