Bank Jeffrey S, Witt Benjamin L, Taylor Linda J, Adler Douglas G
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Division of Cytopathology, Department of Anatomic Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Diagn Cytopathol. 2018 Mar;46(3):234-238. doi: 10.1002/dc.23875. Epub 2017 Dec 12.
The sensitivity of brush cytology for biliary strictures has typically been low, usually 30%-60%. We compared the cellular yield and diagnostic accuracy using a new cytology brush (n = 16) versus standard biliary brushings (n = 16) in 32 patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with brushings for evaluation of a biliary stricture for malignancy.
We performed retrospective chart reviews of 16 consecutive ERCPs with brushings performed for the cytologic evaluation of a biliary stricture for malignancy using the new cytology brush between January 2016 and February 2017 at our institution. Our control cohort was 16 consecutive ERCP cases performed for the same indication directly preceding the availability of the new cytology brush.
The biliary brushing cases performed using the new cytology brush demonstrated a significantly increased number of total cell clusters per representative ×20 field compared with cases using the standard brush (mean 24.6 versus 14.4, P = .03). This trend continued when assessing large (>50 cells) clusters (mean 5.8 vs. 3.3, P = .02) and medium (6-49 cells) clusters (11.1 vs. 5.8, P = .03). Nonetheless, there were no statistically significant differences with regards to diagnostic accuracy for the new cytology brush versus standard biliary brushings.
We found that the Infinity brush significantly increased diagnostic yield with regards to total cell clusters, large (>50 cells) clusters, and medium (6-49 cells) clusters, however, this did not lead to increased diagnostic accuracy overall. Further studies of this and other brush designs are warranted to optimize biliary brushing specimens.
胆管狭窄的刷检细胞学敏感性通常较低,一般为30%-60%。我们比较了32例接受内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)并进行刷检以评估胆管狭窄是否为恶性肿瘤的患者,使用新型细胞学刷(n = 16)与标准胆管刷检(n = 16)的细胞产量和诊断准确性。
我们对2016年1月至2017年2月在我院使用新型细胞学刷对胆管狭窄进行恶性肿瘤细胞学评估的连续16例ERCP进行回顾性病历审查。我们的对照队列是在新型细胞学刷可用之前直接进行的16例因相同适应症而进行的连续ERCP病例。
与使用标准刷的病例相比,使用新型细胞学刷进行的胆管刷检病例在每个代表性×20视野中的总细胞簇数量显著增加(平均24.6对14.4,P = 0.03)。在评估大(>50个细胞)簇(平均5.8对3.3,P = 0.02)和中(6-49个细胞)簇(11.1对5.8,P = 0.03)时,这种趋势持续存在。尽管如此,新型细胞学刷与标准胆管刷检在诊断准确性方面没有统计学上的显著差异。
我们发现Infinity刷在总细胞簇、大(>50个细胞)簇和中(6-49个细胞)簇方面显著提高了诊断产量,然而,这并没有导致总体诊断准确性的提高。有必要对这种和其他刷检设计进行进一步研究,以优化胆管刷检标本。