Download PDF
Endoscopy 1999; 31(9): 712-717
DOI: 10.1055/s-1999-73
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Prospective Evaluation of Brush Cytology of Biliary Strictures During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

B. Glasbrenner 1 , M. Ardan 1 , W. Boeck 1 , G. Preclik 1 , P. Möller 2 , G. Adler 1
  • 1 Department of Internal Medicine I, University of Ulm, Germany
  • 2 Department of Pathology, University of Ulm, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 1999 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Background and Study Aims: Cytological methods may be used to differentiate benign from malignant biliary strictures. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of an endobiliary cytotechnique which can easily be performed during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Patients and Methods: Cytological samples were obtained by brushing biliary strictures via a guide wire in 86 patients with strictures of unknown status. Samples were classified by an expert cytologist as normal (including reactive cells), severely dysplastic (atypical cells suspicious of malignancy) and clearly malignant. A final diagnosis was achieved in 78 patients based on intraoperative findings and histological investigation, autopsy or prolonged follow-up. Strictures were malignant in 57 cases (31 pancreatic carcinoma, 20 cholangiocarcinoma, 6 others) and benign in 21 cases (11 chronic pancreatitis, 5 chronic nonspecific inflammation, 5 others).

Results: The overall results for brush cytological investigation were sensitivity 56.1 %, specificity 90.5 %, positive predictive value 94.1 %, negative predictive value 43.2 %, and accuracy 65.4 %. Sensitivity was significantly higher (P < 0.005) in cholangiocarcinoma (80 %) compared with pancreatic carcinoma (35.5 %). The overall specificity of less than 100 % resulted from dysplasia in two patients with chronic pancreatitis and inflammatory mass. No procedure-related complications occurred.

Conclusions: Brush cytology is helpful for differentiating between benign and malignant biliary strictures, especially in suspected cholangiocarcinoma. Dysplastic cells may occur in the absence of malignancy and their presence should therefore be interpreted cautiously.

References

  • 1 Choudari CP, Fogel E, Gottlieb K, et al. Therapeutic biliary endoscopy.  Endoscopy. 1998;  30 163-173
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Foutch PG, Kerr DM, Harlan JR, et al. A prospective controlled analysis of endoscopic cytotechniques for diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1991;  86 577-580
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Desa LA, Akosa AB, Lazzara S, et al. Cytodiagnosis in the management of extrahepatic biliary stricture.  Gut. 1991;  32 1188-1191
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chang L, French S, Hierro M, et al. A prospective study comparing endobiliary biopsy, brush and aspiration cytology during ERCP in diagnosing biliary obstructive lesions.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1992;  87 1282
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kurzawinski T, Deery A, Dooley J, et al. A prospective controlled study comparing brush and bile exfoliative cytology for diagnosing bile duct strictures.  Gut. 1992;  33 1675-1677
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Venu RP, Geenen JE, Kini M, et al. Endoscopic retrograde brush cytology: a new technique.  Gastroenterology. 1990;  99 1475-1479
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rupp M, Hawthorne CM, Ehya H. Brushing cytology in biliary duct obstruction.  Acta Cytol. 1990;  34 221-226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Scudera PL, Koizumi J, Jacobson IM. Brush cytology evaluation of lesions encountered during ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;  36 281-284
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Foutch PG, Kerr D, Harlan JR, et al. Endoscopic retrograde wire-guided brush cytology for diagnosis of patients with malignant obstruction of the bile duct.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;  85 791-795
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rabinovitz M, Zajko AB, Hassanein T, et al. Diagnostic value of brush cytology in the diagnosis of bile duct carcinoma: a study in 65 patients with bile duct strictures.  Hepatology. 1990;  12 747-752
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ryan ME. Cytologic brushings of ductal lesions during ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 139-142
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Howell DA, Beveridge RP, Bosco J, et al. Endoscopic needle aspiration at ERCP in the diagnosis of biliary strictures.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;  38 531-535
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kurzawinski TR, Deery A, Dooley JS, et al. A prospective study of biliary cytology in 100 patients with bile duct strictures.  Hepatology. 1993;  18 1399-1403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ferrari AP, Lichtenstein DR, Slivka A, et al. Brush cytology during ERCP for the diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic malignancies.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;  40 140-145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sugiyama M, Atomi Y, Wada N, et al. Endoscopic transpapillary bile duct biopsy without sphincterotomy for diagnosing biliary strictures: a prospective comparative study with bile and brush cytology.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1996;  91 465-467
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mansfield JC, Griffin SM, Wadehra V, et al. A prospective evaluation of cytology from biliary strictures.  Gut. 1997;  40 671-677
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Schoefl R, Haefner M, Wrba F, et al. Forceps biopsy and brush cytology during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of biliary stenoses.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997;  32 363-368
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rossi M, Lemos A, Bonaiuti P, et al. Instrumental diagnosis of obstructive jaundice: brushing versus biopsy.  Radiol Med Torino. 1997;  93 230-235
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Foutch PG, Harlan JR, Kerr D, et al. Wire-guided brush cytology: a new endoscopic method for diagnosis of bile duct cancer.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1989;  35 243-247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sawada Y, Gonda H, Hayashida Y. Combined use of brushing cytology and endoscopic retrograde pancreatography for the early detection of pancreatic cancer.  Acta Cytol. 1989;  33 870-374
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 McGuire DE, Venu RP, Brown RD, et al. Brush cytology for pancreatic carcinoma: an analysis of factors influencing results.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 300-304
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ryan ME, Baldauf MC. Comparison of flow cytometry for DNA content and brush cytology for detection of malignancy in pancreaticobiliary strictures.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;  40 133-139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sears RJ, Duckworth CW, Decaestecker C, et al. Image cytometry as a discriminatory tool for cytologic specimens obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.  Cancer. 1998;  84 119-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Van Laethem JL, Bourgeois V, Parma J, et al. Relative contribution of Ki-ras gene analysis and brush cytology during ERCP for the diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic diseases.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  47 479-485
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Morales CP, Burdick JS, Saboorian MH, et al. In situ hybridization for telomerase RNA in routine cytologic brushings for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancies.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 402-405
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Warshaw AL. Implications of peritoneal cytology for staging of early pancreatic cancer.  Am J Surg. 1991;  161 26-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Paliard P, Ponchon T, Labadie M, et al. Value of intraductal biopsies and intraductal cytology in the etiological diagnosis of biliary stenoses.  Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1987;  11 449-452
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Duber C, Klose KJ, Braunstein S, et al. Obstructive jaundice: its histological diagnosis by percutaneous endoluminal bile duct biopsy.  Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 1991;  155 246-250
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tamada K, Ueno N, Tomiyama T, et al. Characterization of biliary strictures using intraductal ultrasonography: comparison with percutaneous cholangioscopic biopsy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  47 341-349
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sato M, Inoue H, Ogawa S, et al. Limitations of percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy for the diagnosis of the intramural extension of bile duct carcinoma.  Endoscopy. 1998;  30 281-288
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ortner M, Graebe D, Weber J, et al. The value of peroral cholangioscopy.  Gastroenterology. 1998;  114 A535
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Layfield LJ, Wax TD, Lee JG, et al. Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings.  Acta Cytol. 1995;  39 11-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lee JG, Leung JW, Baillie J, et al. Benign, dysplastic, or malignant - making sense of endoscopic bile duct brush cytology: results in 149 consecutive patients.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;  90 722-726
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

B. GlasbrennerM.D. 

University of Magdeburg

Leipziger Strasse 44

39120 Magdeburg

Germany

Phone: + 49-391-6713105

Email: Bernhard.Glasbrenner@Medizin.Uni-Magdeburg.de

      >