Download PDF
Endoscopy 2023; 55(09): 796-803
DOI: 10.1055/a-2041-7687
Original article

Multicenter randomized trial comparing diagnostic sensitivity and cellular abundance with aggressive versus standard biliary brushing for bile duct stenosis without mass syndrome

David Karsenti 
1   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pôle Digestif Paris Bercy, Clinique Paris-Bercy, France
,
Jocelyn Privat
2   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Vichy Hospital Center, Vichy, France
,
Aurélie Charissoux
3   Department of Pathology, University Hospital Centre of Limoges, Limoges, France
,
Bastien Perrot
4   UMR 1246 SPHERE (MethodS in Patient-centered outcomes and HEalth ResEarch), INSERM, Nantes University, Tours University, France
,
Sarah Leblanc
5   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Jean Mermoz Private Hospital, Lyon, France
,
Ulriikka Chaput
6   Department of Digestive Diseases, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Paris, France
,
Isabelle Boytchev
7   Gastroenterology Department, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre University Hospital, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
,
Jonathan Levy
8   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Clinique des Cèdres, Cornebarrieu, France
,
Marion Schaefer
 9   Hepatogastroenterology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nancy, Vandoeuvre les Nancy, France
,
Jean-François Bourgaux
10   Gastroenterology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Carémeau, Nîmes, France
,
Jean-Christophe Valats
11   Hepatogastroenterology, Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Montpellier, France
,
Emmanuel Coron
12   Digestive Diseases Institute, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes, Nantes, France
13   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geneva University Hospital (HUG), Geneva, Switzerland
,
Maira Moreno-Garcia
14   Research and Development Unit, French Society of Digestive Endoscopy, Paris, France
,
Geoffroy Vanbiervliet 
15   Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Pôle DIGi-TUNED, Endoscopie Digestive, Hôpital L’Archet 2, Nice, France
,
Gabriel Rahmi
16   Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France
,
Enrique Perez-Cuadrado Robles 
16   Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France
,
Timothée Wallenhorst
17   Department of Endoscopy and Gastroenterology, University Hospital Centre Rennes, Rennes, France
› Author AffiliationsTrial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration number (trial ID): NCT04251013 Type of study: Prospective Multicenter Randomized Trial
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints


Referred to by:

Author commentary on David Karsenti et al.Endoscopy 2023; 55(09): v25-v25
DOI: 10.1055/a-2058-5505

Abstract

Background The diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with a biliary stricture without mass syndrome can be obtained by biliary brushing with a sensitivity of ~50 %. We performed a multicenter randomized crossover trial comparing the aggressive Infinity brush with the standard RX Cytology Brush. The aims were to compare sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis and cellularity obtained.

Methods Biliary brushing was performed consecutively with each brush, in a randomized order. Cytological material was studied with blinding to the brush type used and order. The primary end point was sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis; the secondary end point was the abundance of cellularity obtained with each brush, with cellularity quantified in order to determine if one brush strongly outperformed the other.

Results 51 patients were included. Final diagnoses were cholangiocarcinoma (n = 43; 84 %), benign (n = 7; 14 %), and indeterminate (n = 1; 2 %). Sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma was 79 % (34 /43) for the Infinity brush versus 67 % (29/43) for the RX Cytology Brush (P = 0.10). Cellularity was rich in 31/51 cases (61 %) with the Infinity brush and in 10/51 cases (20 %) with the RX Cytology Brush (P < 0.001). In terms of quantification of cellularity, the Infinity brush strongly outperformed the RX Cytology Brush in 28/51 cases (55 %), while the RX Cytology Brush strongly outperformed the Infinity brush in 4/51 cases (8 %; P < 0.001).

Conclusions This randomized crossover trial showed that the Infinity brush is not significantly more effective than the RX Cytology Brush for biliary stenosis without mass syndrome in terms of sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis, but does offer a significantly higher abundance of cellularity.



Publication History

Received: 02 November 2022

Accepted after revision: 23 February 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
27 February 2023

Article published online:
03 May 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Nguyen Canh H, Harada K. Adult bile duct strictures: differentiating benign biliary stenosis from cholangiocarcinoma. Med Mol Morphol 2016; 49: 189-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Khan SA, Davidson BR, Goldin RD. et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: an update. Gut 2012; 61: 1657-1669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Benavides M, Antón A, Gallego J. et al. Biliary tract cancers: SEOM clinical guidelines. Clin Transl Oncol 2015; 17: 982-987
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cai Y, Cheng N, Ye H. et al. The current management of cholangiocarcinoma: A comparison of current guidelines. Biosci Trends 2016; 10: 92-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fong ZV, Brownlee SA, Qadan M. et al. The clinical management of cholangiocarcinoma in the United States and Europe: a comprehensive and evidence-based comparison of guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28: 2660-2674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Liu X, Yang Z, Tan H. et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant hilar bile duct stenosis. J Surg Res 2016; 203: 275-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Otsuka S, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y. et al. Benign hilar bile duct strictures resected as perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2019; 106: 1504-1511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gerritsen A, Molenaar IQ, Bollen TL. et al. Preoperative characteristics of patients with presumed pancreatic cancer but ultimately benign disease: a multicenter series of 344 pancreatoduodenectomies. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 3999-4006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 De Moura DTH, Moura EGH, Bernardo WM. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasound for tissue diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound 2018; 7: 10-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Karsenti D, Palazzo L, Perrot B. et al. 22G Acquire vs. 20G Procore needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses: a randomized study comparing histologic sample quantity and diagnostic accuracy. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 747-753
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tanisaka Y, Mizuide M, Fujita A. et al. Diagnostic process using endoscopy for biliary strictures: a narrative review. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 1048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Navaneethan U, Hasan MK, Lourdusamy V. et al. Single-operator cholangioscopy and targeted biopsies in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 608-614.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sun X, Zhou Z, Tian J. et al. Is single-operator peroral cholangioscopy a useful tool for the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesion? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 79-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 de Vries AB, van der Heide F, Ter Steege RWF. et al. Limited diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of single-operator peroral cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 107-114
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Barrioz T, Wangermez M, Levillain P. et al. The Infinity brush improves the results of brush cytology of malignant biliary strictures. Endoscopy 2013; 45: A7407
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Thosani NC, Banerjee S, Chen AM. et al. Su1698. Prospective, randomized, single-blinded controlled trial of Infinity cytology brush vs standard cytology brush for diagnosis of biliary stricture: an interim analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: AB371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kylänpää L, Boyd S, Ristimäki A. et al. A prospective randomised study of dense Infinity cytological brush versus regularly used brush in pancreaticobiliary malignancy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016; 51: 590-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L. et al. ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 127-149
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Ali SZ. et al. Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines. Cytojournal 2014; 11: 3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Stock C, Hielscher T, Stock MC. Package dtcompair: comparison of binary diagnostic tests in a paired study design. R package version 1.0.3. 2013 Available at (Accessed 21.03.2023): cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DTComPair/index.html
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Razumilava N, Gores GJ. Cholangiocarcinoma. Lancet 2014; 383: 2168-2179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 de Bellis M, Fogel EL, Sherman S. et al. Influence of stricture dilation and repeat brushing on the cancer detection rate of brush cytology in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 176-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ornellas LC, Santos Gda C, Nakao FS. et al. Comparison between endoscopic brush cytology performed before and after biliary stricture dilation for cancer detection. Arq Gastroenterol 2006; 43: 20-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pörner D, Kaczmarek DJ, Heling D. et al. Transpapillary tissue sampling of biliary strictures: balloon dilatation prior to forceps biopsy improves sensitivity and accuracy. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 17423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fior-Gozlan M, Giovannini D, Rabeyrin M. et al. Monocentric study of bile aspiration associated with biliary brushing performed during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in 239 patients with symptomatic biliary stricture. Cancer Cytopathol 2016; 124: 330-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Roth GS, Bichard P, Fior-Gozlan M. et al. Performance of bile aspiration plus brushing to diagnose malignant biliary strictures during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E997-E1003
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Layfield LJ, Esebua M, Ang J. et al. Cell block cellularity: A comparison of two fixatives and their impact on cellularity. Diagn Cytopathol 2019; 47: 417-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kaura K, Sawas T, Bazerbachi F. et al. Cholangioscopy biopsies improve detection of cholangiocarcinoma when combined with cytology and FISH, but not in patients with PSC. Dig Dis Sci 2020; 65: 1471-1478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gerges C, Beyna T, Tang RSY. et al. Digital single-operator peroral cholangioscopy-guided biopsy sampling versus ERCP-guided brushing for indeterminate biliary strictures: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 1105-1113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sethi A, Chen YK, Austin GL. et al. ERCP with cholangiopancreatoscopy may be associated with higher rates of complications than ERCP alone: a single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 251-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar