Mehmood Shafqat, Loya Asif, Yusuf Muhammed Aasim
Department of Internal Medicine, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan.
Acta Cytol. 2016;60(2):167-72. doi: 10.1159/000446149. Epub 2016 May 25.
To evaluate the diagnostic yield of biliary brush cytology and the factors affecting positive results in patients with biliary strictures.
The medical records of all patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary brush cytology at our institution from November 2004 to December 2013 were reviewed in this retrospective study. The yield of positive brush cytology and the factors affecting positive yield, such as stricture location, age, gender and preprocedure CA 19.9 level were assessed. The final histopathology, diagnosis obtained by other methods, such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology, CT scan, Tru-Cut biopsy and/or clinical/radiological follow-up were used to identify true- and false-positive/negative results. The brush cytology results were divided into 4 main categories: malignant, benign, atypical cells and inadequate.
A total of 1,168 patients underwent ERCP during this 9-year period. Out of these, 142 patients had ERCP and biliary brushings for diagnosis. The mean age of the patients at presentation was 58.7 years (range 23-84 years; 64.8% males). The indication for referral was obstructive jaundice in all patients. Of the 142 patients, 77 (54.2%) had a distal common bile duct (CBD) stricture and 65 (45.8%) had a proximal /complex hilar stricture. The strictures were classified as proximal or distal, based on their relationship with the cystic duct; those below the cystic duct insertion were classified as distal and those above it were considered proximal. The diagnostic yield of brush cytology was 58.5%. The diagnostic yield was higher for proximal than for distal CBD strictures (67 vs. 50%; p = 0.047). It was also higher for females (58 vs. 57.6%; p = 0.94), patients >50 years (60 vs. 50%; p = 0.29) and those with a CA 19.9 level >300 IU/ml (59.4 vs. 55.5%; p = 0.65) but did not reach statistical significance for any of these parameters. Complete follow-up data were available for 96 patients and 46 patients were lost to follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 65.3, 100, 100 and 27%, respectively. When patients with atypia were included in the group with positive results, the diagnostic yield increased to 65.5% with a diagnostic sensitivity of 68.6%. There were 27 false-negative diagnoses, 10 patients were true-negative and no patients had a false-positive diagnosis.
Biliary brush cytology is a safe and simple initial diagnostic procedure in patients with biliary strictures and can be performed at the time of therapeutic ERCP. If performed correctly and then interpreted by a dedicated cytopathologist, it has a good diagnostic yield and sensitivity. We feel that the low rates of success with this technique reported in some earlier studies have led to a feeling that this is not a particularly useful technique. We recommend that this topic should be revisited, and that the technique should be used more often.
评估胆管刷检细胞学检查的诊断率以及影响胆管狭窄患者阳性结果的因素。
本回顾性研究对2004年11月至2013年12月期间在我院接受内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)及胆管刷检细胞学检查的所有患者的病历进行了回顾。评估了刷检细胞学阳性率以及影响阳性率的因素,如狭窄部位、年龄、性别和术前CA 19.9水平。采用最终组织病理学检查结果,以及通过其他方法获得的诊断结果,如内镜超声引导下细针穿刺细胞学检查、CT扫描、Tru-Cut活检和/或临床/影像学随访结果,来确定真阳性和假阳性/阴性结果。刷检细胞学结果分为4大类:恶性、良性、非典型细胞和标本不足。
在这9年期间,共有1168例患者接受了ERCP检查。其中,142例患者接受了ERCP及胆管刷检以进行诊断。患者就诊时的平均年龄为58.7岁(范围23 - 84岁;男性占64.8%)。所有患者的转诊指征均为梗阻性黄疸。在142例患者中,77例(54.2%)存在胆总管远端(CBD)狭窄,65例(45.8%)存在近端/复杂肝门部狭窄。根据狭窄与胆囊管的关系,将狭窄分为近端或远端;胆囊管插入点以下的狭窄归为远端,以上的则视为近端。刷检细胞学检查的诊断率为58.5%。近端CBD狭窄的诊断率高于远端CBD狭窄(67%对50%;p = 0.047)。女性患者的诊断率也较高(58%对57.6%;p = 0.94),年龄>50岁的患者(60%对50%;p = 0.29)以及CA 19.9水平>300 IU/ml的患者(59.4%对55.5%;p = 0.65),但这些参数均未达到统计学显著性差异。96例患者有完整的随访数据,46例患者失访。敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为65.3%、100%、100%和27%。当将非典型患者纳入阳性结果组时,诊断率提高到65.5%,诊断敏感性为68.6%。有27例假阴性诊断,10例患者为真阴性,无患者有假阳性诊断。
胆管刷检细胞学检查是胆管狭窄患者一种安全、简单的初始诊断方法,可在治疗性ERCP时进行。如果操作正确并由专业细胞病理学家解读,它具有良好的诊断率和敏感性。我们认为,一些早期研究报道的该技术成功率较低,导致人们觉得这不是一项特别有用的技术。我们建议应重新审视这个问题,并更频繁地使用该技术。