Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지

Biliary Brush Cytology in the Assessment of Biliary Strictures at a Tertiary Center in Iran

Alizadeh, Mohammad Amir Houshang;Mousavi, Mirhadi;Salehi, Babak;Molaei, Mahsa;Khodadoostan, Mahsa;Afzali, Esmaeil Shamsi;Dadvar, Zohreh;Mirsattari, Dariush;Aghdaei, Hamid Asadzadeh;Lahmi, Farhad;Zali, Mohammad Reza

  • Published : 20111000
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Confirmation of cholangiocarcinoma and other malignant bile duct stenosis is challenging. The aim of the current study was to assess the accuracy of brush cytology for diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures. Methods: 105 patients with hepatic biliary strictures undergoing ERCP were included in this study. Prospectively collected data included symptoms, results of biochemical testing and imaging procedures, as well as details of ERCP. Exclusion criteria were: 1) strictures that would not permit passage of guidewire and brush accession; and 2) post-operative strictures. Brushings of the bile duct strictures were performed. All patients were followed for at least 6 months. The final diagnosis was confirmed following surgery, histopathological diagnosis of the lesion, radiological infiltration of adjacent organs or metastases, or after at least a 6-month follow-up. Results: 88 brush samples from 88 patients were of appropriate quality. The overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for malignant nature of biliary strictures were 40.7% and 100%, respectively. The sensitivity was 66.6 % for ampullary carcinomas, 36.3% for pancreatic cancer and 32.5% for cholangiocarcinomas. Conclusions: Despite the low sensitivity, due to the relative ease and safety, brush cytology should remain the first choice for diagnosis of causes of biliary strictures.

Keywords

References

  1. de Peralta-Venturina MN, Wong DK, Purslow MJ, et al (1996). Biliary tract cytology in specimens obtained by direct cholangiographic procedures: a study of 74 cases. Diagn Cytopathol, 14, 334-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199605)14:4<334::AID-DC12>3.0.CO;2-L
  2. Desa LA, Akosa AB, Lazzara S, et al (1991). Cytodiagnosis in the management of extrahepatic biliary stricture. Gut, 32, 1188-91. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.32.10.1188
  3. Foutch PG (1994). Diagnosis of cancer by cytological methods performed during ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc, 40, 249-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(94)70183-0
  4. Ishimaru S, Itoh M, Hanada K, et al (1996). Immunocytochemical detection of p53 protein from pancreatic duct brushings in patients with pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer, 77, 2233-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960601)77:11<2233::AID-CNCR8>3.0.CO;2-Q
  5. Iwao T, Hanada K, Tsuchida A, et al (1998). The establishment of a preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma using cell specimens from pancreatic duct brushing with special attention to p53 mutations. Cancer, 82, 1487-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980415)82:8<1487::AID-CNCR9>3.0.CO;2-6
  6. Kipp BR, Stadheim LM, Halling SA, et al (2004). A comparison of routine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of malignant bile duct strictures. Am J Gastroenterol, 99, 1675-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.30281.x
  7. Kocjan G, Smith AN (1997). Bile duct brushings cytology: potential pitfalls in diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol, 16, 358-63. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199704)16:4<358::AID-DC11>3.0.CO;2-J
  8. Kurzawinski T, Deery A, Davidson BR (1993). Diagnostic value of cytology for biliary stricture. Br J Surg, 80, 414-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800800404
  9. Lee JG, Leung JW, Baillie J, et al (1995). Benign, dysplastic, or malignant-making sense of endoscopic bile duct brush cytology: results in 149 patients. Am J Gastroenterol, 90, 722-6.
  10. Logrono R, Kurtycz DF,Molina CP, et al (2000). Analysis of false negative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures. The experience at 2 university hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 124, 387-92.
  11. Mansfield JC, Griffin SM, Wadehra V, Matthewson K (1997). A prospective evaluation of cytology from biliary strictures. Gut, 40, 671-7.
  12. McGuire DE, Venu RP, Brown RD, et al (1996). Brush cytology for pancreatic carcinoma: an analysis of factors influencing results. Gastrointest Endosc, 44, 300-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(96)70168-2
  13. Ponchon T, Gagnon P, Berger F, et al (1995). Value of endobiliary brush cytology and biopsies for the diagnosis of malignant bile duct stenosis: results of a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc, 42, 565-72.
  14. Rupp M, Hawthorne CM, Ehya H (1990). Brushing cytology in biliary tract obstruction. Acta Cytol, 34, 221-6.
  15. Stoos-Veic T, Bilic B, Kaic G, et al (2010). Biliary brush cytology for the diagnosis of malignancy: a single center experience. Coll Anthropol, 34, 139-43.
  16. Sturm PDJ, Rauws EAJ, Hruban RH, et al (1999). Clinical value of K-ras codon 12 analysis and endobiliary brush cytology for the diagnosis of malignant extrahepatic bile duct stenosis. Clin Cancer Res, 5, 629-35.
  17. Sawada Y, Gonda H, Hayashida Y (1989). Combined use of brushing cytology and endoscopic retrograde pancreatography for the early detection of pancreatic cancer. Acta Cytol, 33, 870-4.
  18. van Es JM, Polak MM, van den Berg FM, et al (1995). Molecular markers for diagnostic cytology of neoplasms in the head region of the pancreas: mutation of K-ras and overexpression of the p53 protein product. J Clin Pathol, 48, 218-22. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.48.3.218