Abstract
Background In vivo studies of airway pathology in obstructive lung disease are limited by poor quality of specimens obtained with forceps. Obtainment of cryobiopsies has increased diagnostic yield in cancer and interstitial lung disease but has not been used in patients with asthma. In a recent pilot study, we found mucosal cryobiopsies to be larger and more intact than conventional forceps biopsies.
Aims and Objectives To compare quality and safety of mucosal cryobiopsies versus conventional forceps biopsies in patients with asthma.
Methods Endobronchial biopsies were obtained with forceps and cryoprobe from patients with asthma not currently treated with inhaled steroids and evaluated histologically.
Results A total of 240 cryobiopsies and 288 forceps biopsies were obtained from 48 patients. Bleeding from the biopsy site was common but self-limiting. No major complications related to the procedure were seen. Cryobiopsy cross areas were 4 times larger compared with forceps. Stretches of intact epithelium were detected in in all cryobiopsies compared to 33% in forceps biopsies. Further, the length of intact epithelium was on average 4 times longer in the cryobiopsies. Importantly, there was a good preservation of both antigens and mRNA in the cryobiopsies ensuring a suitability and robustness for immunohistochemistry and in-situ hybridisation.
Conclusion Obtainment of mucosal cryobiopsies in patients with asthma is safe and yields biopsies that are significantly larger and morphologically better preserved compared with traditional forceps biopsies. The cryotechnique thus seems to be a promising tool for future in vivo studies of airway pathology.
Footnotes
This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.
Laurits Frøssing reports receiving payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from GSK: Spirometry brochure.
Celeste Porsbjerg reports receiving grants or contracts from AZ, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi, and ALK, outside the submitted work. Consulting fees from AZ, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi, and ALK, outside the submitted work. Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events received from AZ, GSK, Novartis, TEVA, Sanofi, Chiesi, and ALK, outside the submitted work.
The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.
- Received November 26, 2021.
- Accepted February 1, 2022.
- Copyright ©The authors 2022
This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org