Introduction
Accurate and timely diagnosis of biliary strictures remains a challenge. Current diagnostic
modalities include cytology brushing, confocal endomicroscopy, and cholangioscopy.
Tissue sampling with brushing and biopsy during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
(ERCP) has been the standard for diagnosis, however this method is not adequately
sensitive, with reported sensitivities ranging from 18 % to 60 % [1]
[2]. The addition of confocal endomicroscopy increases accuracy and sensitivity, but
reported sensitives are still below 90 % [3]. Direct visualization of the pancreaticobiliary mucosa and targeted biopsies is
achieved by cholangioscopy, but this is limited by visualization of the surface epithelium
only [4]
[5]
[6].
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an optical imaging modality introduced in 1991
that can perform high-resolution, cross-sectional tomographic imaging that can be
interpreted in vivo. OCT measures back-scattered or back-reflected infrared light
to image tissue microstructure. Multiple studies, both in-vitro and in vivo, have
demonstrated the ability of OCT to visualize and differentiate between the multiple
layers of the gastrointestinal and pancreatobiliary wall structure as well as various
microscopic structures such as blood vessels and submucosal glands [7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]. Due to differences in light backscattering processes, OCT has also been shown to
differentiate between neoplastic and non-neoplastic tissue [12]
[13]
[14].
While early studies showed promising ability of OCT to delineate mucosal layers and
tissue microstructures, widespread use was limited by shallow penetration depths and
suboptimal resolution [9]
[10]
[12]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]. However, newer versions of this technology, such as the NVision Volumetric Laser
Endomicroscopy (VLE) (Ninepoint, Bedford, Massachusetts, United States), allow for
higher quality images [21]
[22]
[23]. These high-quality images and visualization of microstructures and layers of the
pancreatobiliary wall make OCT a potential complementary technique to previously established
modalities of diagnosing indeterminate biliary strictures such as cytology brushing
and cholangioscopy.
OCT has previously been demonstrated to be both safe and feasible, and preliminary
studies have confirmed standardized characteristics associated with benign and malignant
disease [21]
[22]
[23]. The aim of this study is to evaluate the first interobserver agreement in identifying
previously agreed upon OCT criteria and making a diagnosis of malignant versus benign
disease.
Patients and methods
Criteria
Tyberg et al. identified nine specific criteria based on recurring characteristics
described by individual operators; these criteria were then condensed to eight criteria
by expert opinion during an invited meeting of experts in OCT technology [23]. These criteria set included presence of: 1) dilated hypo-reflective structures;
2) hyper-glandular mucosa ( > 3 per frame); 3) hyper-reflective surface; 4) intact
layering; 5) layering effacement; 6) onion-skin layering; 7) thickened epithelium;
and 8) scalloping ([Fig. 1])
Fig. 1 a Dilated hypo-reflective structures. b Hyper-glandular mucosa (> 3 per frame). c Hyper-reflective surface. d Intact layering. e Layering effacement. f Onion-skin layering. g Thickened epithelium. h Scalloping.
Video clips and images
Three tertiary-care centers contributed a total of 35 de-identified video recording
clips in mp4 (MPEG-4 Part 14) format for the IOA scoring; as well as 10 reference
images and clips for a new reference atlas ([Video 1]). None of these recordings and images were used in any previous studies or publications.
Video 1 Visualization of scalloping criteria in the bile duct.
The OCT images used in the atlas and the video clips were obtained from adult patients
([Table 1]) evaluated for indeterminate biliary strictures between January 2017 to May 2018
using the NVision VLE Imaging System (Ninepoint Medical). Obtained images contained
an axial resolution of seven microns, lateral resolution of 40 microns, focal length
of 2.4 mm and depth of image of 3 mm. Images were captured via 90-second scan encompassing
a length of 6 cm.
Table 1
Patient characteristics and clinical diagnoses.
Case
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Presenting symptoms and cross-sectional imaging
|
Final diagnosis
|
1
|
72
|
Male
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
2
|
65
|
Female
|
Jaundice, hilar stricture
|
Cholangiocarcinoma
|
3
|
58
|
Male
|
Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
4
|
65
|
Male
|
Elevated LFTs, CHD stricture
|
Post-surgical stricture
|
5
|
66
|
Female
|
Jaundice, CHD stricture
|
Benign biliary stricture
|
6
|
59
|
Male
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Benign biliary stricture
|
7
|
72
|
Male
|
Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture
|
Benign biliary stricture
|
8
|
29
|
Female
|
Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
9
|
73
|
Male
|
Elevated LFTs, hilar stricture
|
Cholangiocarcinoma
|
10
|
69
|
Female
|
Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture
|
Benign biliary stricture
|
11
|
62
|
Female
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
12
|
72
|
Male
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
13
|
68
|
Female
|
Elevated LFTs, hilar stricture
|
Cholangiocarcinoma
|
14
|
75
|
Male
|
Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
15
|
81
|
Female
|
Jaundice, hilar stricture
|
Cholangiocarcinoma
|
16
|
67
|
Male
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Benign Biliary stricture
|
17
|
75
|
Female
|
Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
18
|
59
|
Male
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
19
|
76
|
Female
|
Elevated LFTs, distal biliary stricture
|
Benign biliary stricture
|
20
|
75
|
Female
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
21
|
66
|
Female
|
Jaundice, hilar stricture
|
Cholangiocarcinoma
|
22
|
82
|
Female
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
23
|
75
|
Male
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
24
|
71
|
Male
|
Elevated LFTs, hilar stricture
|
Cholangiocarcinoma
|
25
|
59
|
Female
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
26
|
68
|
Female
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Benign Biliary stricture
|
27
|
56
|
Male
|
Jaundice, CHD stricture
|
Benign Biliary stricture
|
28
|
74
|
Male
|
Elevated LFTs, hilar stricture
|
Cholangiocarcinoma
|
29
|
58
|
Female
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
30
|
63
|
Male
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Benign Biliary stricture
|
31
|
65
|
Female
|
Jaundice, CHD stricture
|
Benign Biliary stricture
|
32
|
58
|
Male
|
Jaundice, Hilar stricture
|
Cholangiocarcinoma
|
33
|
82
|
Female
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
34
|
76
|
Female
|
Jaundice, distal biliary stricture
|
Pancreatic cancer
|
35
|
52
|
Male
|
Jaundice, CHD stricture
|
Benign biliary stricture
|
LFT, liver function test; CHD, common hepatic duct.
None of these patients had any history of primary sclerosing cholangitis. A final
diagnosis of malignancy was obtained from histopathology results and confirmed on
follow-up. For those patients with benign lesions on OCT and histology, a minimum
of 6-month follow-up was required before confirming a benign etiology.
Each clip was at least 20 seconds long in duration and were selected based on image
resolution, presence of at least one criterion, and confirmed final diagnosis. The
median duration of the 35 clips was 25 seconds. The video clips focused on only the
visualization of the affected bile duct. There were no mid-clip edits or any other
videography/software enhancements to alter resolution.
After the reference video atlas was created, it was reviewed and confirmed by expert
interventional endoscopists with experience in biliary OCT.
The participating 14 interventional endoscopists were first instructed to familiarize
themselves with the criteria published in Tyberg et al. [11].
Then they were asked to view the new reference video and images atlas that displayed
these criteria.
Upon completion of the review of the reference atlas, 35 de-identified OCT video clips
and corresponding scoring sheet were sent to the endoscopists via an online survey
module.
Expert interventional endoscopists view each clip and mark the presence or absence
of each criterion visualized in each clip on the scoring sheet. No medical history,
clinical data, histological data, final diagnosis, fluoroscopic images, or other imaging
was provided to these endoscopists.
The endoscopists then classified the clips as neoplastic or non-neoplastic based on
criteria they visualized in each clip.
A majority of interventional endoscopists had performed a minimum of 100 cholangioscopies
and minimum of 20 OCT procedures at the time of the study. At the time of the study,
all but one endoscopist had conducted at least five biliary OCT procedures. One endoscopist
had performed 15. Endoscopists whose centers contributed clips to the study or reference
atlas were excluded from scoring the video clips.
Statistical analysis
Intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis was conducted to evaluate interrater agreement
for the eight criteria and final diagnosis based on a mean-rating (k = 14), consistency
and absolute agreement, 2-way mixed-effects model. The coefficient interpretations
were based on the Cicchetti (1994) guidelines: less than 0.40—poor; between 0.40 and
0.59—fair; between 0.60 and 0.74—good; and between 0.75 and 1.00—excellent.
Categorial variables were described as frequencies and percentages, and quantitative
variables as mean and percentage. Accuracy to detect malignancy on indeterminate biliary
strictures using OCT were calculated for each endoscopist. Chi square test and Fishers
exact test were conducted for proportions. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All descriptive and statistical
analyses were conducted using MedCalc V18.9 (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium).
This study was deemed exempt trial by WCG IRB (NCT03951324).
Results
A total of 14 interventional endoscopists completed the scoring. Clips of 23 malignant
lesions and 12 benign lesions were scored. The mean time of the clip was 19.8 seconds
(range 7–47). The ICC using criteria ranged from poor to excellent (range 0.36 to
0.9) ([Table 2]).
Table 2
Intraclass correlation of previously determined OCT criteria to evaluate biliary strictures.
Criteria
|
Coefficient
|
Intraclass correlation
|
95 % confidence interval
|
Presence of dilated hypo-reflective structures
|
0.85
|
Excellent
|
0.76 to 0.91
|
Presence of hyper-glandular mucosa (> 3 per frame)
|
0.76
|
Excellent
|
0.63 to 0.86
|
Presence of hyper-reflective surface
|
0.36
|
Poor
|
0.004to 0.63
|
Presence of intact layering
|
0.81
|
Excellent
|
0.70 to 0.89
|
Presence of layering effacement
|
0.89
|
Excellent
|
0.73 to 0.94
|
Presence of onion-skin layering
|
0.77
|
Excellent
|
0.65 to 0.87
|
Presence of thickened epithelium
|
0.40
|
Fair
|
0.06 to 0.66
|
Presence of scalloping
|
0.58
|
Fair
|
0.34 to 0.76
|
Neoplastic diagnosis
|
0.79
|
Excellent
|
0.67 to 0.88
|
Non-neoplastic diagnosis
|
0.80
|
Excellent
|
0.68 to 0.88
|
Excellent interobserver agreement was seen with dilated hypo-reflective structures
(0.85), layering effacement (0.89); hyper-glandular mucosa (0.76), intact layering
(0.81), and onion-skin layering (0.77); fair agreement was seen with scalloping (0.58),
and thickened epithelium (0.4); poor agreement was seen with hyper-reflective surface
(0.36). The diagnostic ICC for both neoplastic (0.8) and non-neoplastic (0.8) had
excellent interobserver agreement. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 51 %, ranging
from 43 % to 60 %.
Of 10 variables, seven had excellent interobserver agreement.
Criteria frequency
Neoplastic clips
The most frequent criteria visualized in neoplastic clips were: dilated hypo-reflection
structures (51 %), thickened epithelium (57 %), layering effacement (49 %) and hyper-reflective
surface (49 %) ([Table 3]). The majority of the neoplastic clips (83 %) featured at least three of these criteria
(17/23).
Table 3
Criteria frequency
Feature
|
Overall
|
Neoplastic
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Presence of dilated hypo-reflective structures
|
18/35 (51 %)
|
14/23 (61 %)
|
4/12 (33 %)
|
Presence of hyper-glandular mucosa (> 3 per frame)
|
11/35 (31 %)
|
7/23 (30 %)
|
4/12 (33 %)
|
Presence of hyper-reflective surface
|
17/35 (49 %)
|
11/23 (48 %)
|
6/12 (50 %)
|
Presence of intact layering
|
14/35 (40 %)
|
7/23 (30 %)
|
7/12 (58 %)
|
Presence of layering effacement
|
17/35 (49 %)
|
12/23 (52 %)
|
5/12 (42 %)
|
Presence of onion-skin layering
|
8/35 (23 %)
|
7/23 (30 %)
|
1/12 (8 %)
|
Presence of thickened epithelium
|
20/35 (57 %)
|
13/23 (56.5 %)
|
7/12 (58 %)
|
Presence of scalloping
|
10/35 (29 %)
|
5/23 (22 %)
|
5/12 (42 %)
|
P value compares frequency of criteria visualized in malignant clips vs benign clips.
At least six criteria were present in two of 23 clips, at least four or more criteria
in eight of 23 clips (46 %), at least three or more criteria in 17 of 23 clips (83 %)
and at least two or more criteria in 23 of 23 clips (100 %). Hence, in this study,
based on endoscopist visualization, 83 % of the cases had a moderate to slightly high
risk of being diagnosed as neoplastic if five or more criteria were visualized during
DSOC.
Non-neoplastic clips: Presence of intact layering and presence of thickened epithelium (58 %, P = 0.08) were the only criteria most frequently visualized in non-neoplastic clips
(7/12). At least two or more criteria were visualized in all clips (12/12; 100 %)
and five criteria were visualized in two of 12 clips. All non-neoplastic clips featured
at least two criteria.
Discussion
OCT evaluation of the biliary tree is a promising new modality for the evaluation
of indeterminate biliary strictures. Current standard of care of evaluating these
strictures includes cytology brushing during ERCP, confocal endomicroscopy, and cholangioscopy.
However, while the addition of confocal endomicroscopy and cholangioscopy increase
sensitivity of traditional cytology brushing, sensitivity of these methods still remains
inadequate for diagnosing indeterminate strictures [1]
[2]
[3]
[4].
Multiple ex vivo studies have demonstrated that OCT can delineate tissue microarchitecture
in the pancreatic duct and the bile duct, and these studies also show high concordance
with histology in benign and malignant disease [9]
[12]
[18]. Furthermore, in vivo studies have confirmed the ability of OCT to define biliary
architecture while also demonstrating safety and feasibility of this method [15]
[16]
[17]
[19]
[20]. OCT seems to be an overall safe addition to procedures; adding OCT to ERCP does
not appear to increase procedure risk and reported adverse events rates have been
low [21]
[23]. Technical success rates of OCT have also been reported to be as high as 100 % [23].
OCT notably has many advantages over other diagnostic modalities for indeterminate
biliary strictures [23]. While the surface mucosa can be examined with cholangioscopy, OCT allows for visualization
of structures below the surface mucosa which may show lesions that do not extend transmurally
into the duct. In addition, the OCT probe has a smaller diameter than a cholangioscope,
which allows for easier passage and visualization of tight strictures. Finally, while
confocal endomicroscopy can evaluate one small area of tissue at a time, OCT has the
ability to evaluate 6 cm of tissue in 90 seconds [23].
The previously demonstrated safety, feasibility, and advantages of OCT in evaluating
indeterminate biliary strictures is promising, However, to better utilize this tool,
criteria predictive of benign or malignant disease need to be determined. Accurate
diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures is critical, as management is dependent
on whether the stricture is benign or malignant. The normal wall of the bile duct
has an inner hypo-reflective layer corresponding to the epithelium, a hyper-reflective
layer corresponding to the fibromuscular tissue, and a hypo-reflective layer representing
the connective tissue [9]. Within a biliary stricture, the fibromuscular layer is larger, but the three layers
of the wall are maintained, whereas a malignant lesion will lose organization of the
bile duct wall layers and have large non-reflective areas which may be due to underlying
tumor vessels [25]. In this study, a reference video atlas was created that contained clips and images
of eight previously agreed upon criteria based on expert opinion and prior studies.
These clips were then scored by 14 expert interventional endoscopists and ICC estimates
were calculated. ([Table 4])
Table 4
Interobserver diagnostic accuracy.
|
|
Interobserver (IOV) diagnostic accuracy, yes or no
|
Clip no.
|
Actual diagnosis
|
IOV 1
|
IOV 2
|
IOV 3
|
IOV 4
|
IOV 5
|
IOV 6
|
IOV 7
|
IOV 8
|
IOV 9
|
IOV 10
|
IOV 11
|
IOV 12
|
IOV 13
|
IOV 14
|
Clip 1
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 2
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 3
|
Neoplastic
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 4
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 5
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Clip 6
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 7
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 8
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Clip 9
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 10
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 11
|
Neoplastic
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Clip 12
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 13
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 14
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 15
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 16
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 17
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 18
|
Neoplastic
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 19
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 20
|
Neoplastic
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 21
|
Neoplastic
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 22
|
Neoplastic
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 23
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 24
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 25
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 26
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 27
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 28
|
Neoplastic
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 29
|
Neoplastic
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Clip 30
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 31
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Clip 32
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Clip 33
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Clip 34
|
Neoplastic
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Clip 35
|
Non-neoplastic
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Total accuracy (n)
|
20
|
19
|
18
|
16
|
15
|
18
|
18
|
18
|
19
|
19
|
21
|
15
|
16
|
16
|
|
Total accuracy (%)
|
57 %
|
54 %
|
51 %
|
46 %
|
43 %
|
51 %
|
51 %
|
51 %
|
54 %
|
54 %
|
60 %
|
43 %
|
46 %
|
46 %
|
Excellent interobserver agreement was seen with dilated hypo-reflective structures
(0.85) and layering effacement (0.89), which have previously been identified as a
criteria suggestive of malignancy [20]. Excellent agreement was also seen onion-skin layering (0.77) and intact layering
(0.81), which are features predictive of benign disease. Other criteria suggestive
of malignancy, such as hyper-reflective surface and thickened epithelium showed poor
to fair interobserver agreement, 0.36 and 0.4 respectively [21]. Overall, the diagnostic accuracy was fair at 51 % with a range of 43 % to 60 %.
However, there was high interobserver agreement for the classification of neoplastic
(0.8) versus non-neoplastic (0.8) lesions.
Limitations of this study include small sample size (35 clips) with only 14 interventional
endoscopists scoring the films. At the time of the study (2018–2019), OCT was not
available widely and only select centers were doing OCT for biliary indications. While
diagnostic accuracy in this study was suboptimal, the majority of interventional endoscopists
had performed minimum five OCT procedures at the time of the study. In addition, the
high interobserver agreement for diagnosis of neoplastic vs non-neoplastic disease
is promising. Utility of OCT is likely operator-dependent, and we expect that as endoscopist
experience with OCT increases, accuracy will also increase.
Conclusions
This study provides promising data supporting OCT as an accurate modality to diagnose
indeterminate biliary strictures and is the first study to demonstrate interobserver
agreement. Further studies are needed as endoscopist experience increases to validate
these criteria.