Moura Diogo Turiani Hourneaux, de Moura Eduardo Guidamarães Hourneaux, Matuguma Sergio Eiji, Dos Santos Marcos Eduardo, Moura Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux, Baracat Felipe Iankelevich, Artifon Everson LA, Cheng Spencer, Bernardo Wanderley Marque, Chacon Danielle, Tanigawa Ryan, Jukemura José
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, São Paulo, Brazil.
Endosc Int Open. 2018 Jun;6(6):E769-E777. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-123186. Epub 2018 Jun 5.
Biliary strictures are frequently a challenging clinical scenario and the anatomopathological diagnosis is essential in the therapeutic management, whether for curative or palliative purposes. The acquisition of specimens is necessary since many benign diseases mimic biliopancreatic neoplasms. Endscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the traditionally used method despite the low sensitivity of biliary brush cytology and forceps biopsy. On the other hand, several studies reported good accuracy rates using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this prospective study was to compare, the accuracy of EUS-FNA and ERCP for tissue sampling of biliary strictures.
After performing the sample size calculation, 50 consecutive patients with indeterminate biliary strictures were included to undergo ERCP and EUS on the same sedation.The gold-standard was surgery or 6 months' follow-up. Evaluation of the diagnostic indices (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratio), concordance and adverse events among the methods were performed. Also, subtype analyses of the techniques, anatomical localization and size of the lesion were included.
The final diagnoses reported in 50 patients were 47 malignant, 1 suspicious and 2 benign lesions. 31 lesions were extraductal and 19 intraductal, 35 were distal and 15 proximal strictures. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA were superior than ERCP tissue sampling (93,8 %, 94 % vs. 60,4 %, 62 %, respectively) ( = 0.034), with similar adverse events. There was no concordance between the methods and combining both methods improved the sensitivity and accuracy for 97.9 % and 98 %, respectively. In the subtype analyses, the EUS-FNA was superior, with a higher accuracy than ERCP tissue sampling in evaluating extraductal lesions (100 % vs. 54.8 %, = 0.019) and in those larger than 1.5 cm (95.8 % vs. 61.9 %, = 0.031), but were similar in evaluating intraductal lesions and lesions smaller than 1.5 cm. There was no significant difference between the methods in the analyzes of proximal, distal and pancreatic lesions.
EUS-FNA is better than ERCP with brush cytology and intraductal forceps biopsy in diagnosing malignant biliary strictures, mainly in the assessment of extraductal lesions and in those larger than 1.5 cm. Combining ERCP with tissue sampling and EUS-FNA is feasible, the techniques have similar complication rates, and the combination greatly improves diagnostic accuracy.
胆管狭窄常常是具有挑战性的临床情况,无论出于根治性还是姑息性目的,解剖病理学诊断对于治疗管理至关重要。获取标本很有必要,因为许多良性疾病会模仿胆胰肿瘤。尽管胆管刷检细胞学和活检钳活检的敏感性较低,但内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)仍是传统使用的方法。另一方面,多项研究报告了使用内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术(EUS-FNA)具有较高的准确率。这项前瞻性研究的目的是比较EUS-FNA和ERCP对胆管狭窄组织采样的准确性。
在进行样本量计算后,纳入50例连续的胆管狭窄诊断不明确的患者,在相同镇静状态下接受ERCP和EUS检查。金标准为手术或6个月的随访。对诊断指标(敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值、阳性和阴性似然比)、方法之间的一致性以及不良事件进行评估。此外,还包括技术的亚型分析、病变的解剖定位和大小。
50例患者的最终诊断结果为47例恶性病变、1例可疑病变和2例良性病变。31例病变位于胆管外,19例位于胆管内,35例为远端狭窄,15例为近端狭窄。在意向性分析中,EUS-FNA的敏感性和准确性优于ERCP组织采样(分别为93.8%、94% 与60.4%、62%)(P = 0.034),不良事件相似。两种方法之间不存在一致性,联合使用两种方法可分别将敏感性和准确性提高到97.9%和98%。在亚型分析中,EUS-FNA更具优势,在评估胆管外病变(100% 对54.8%,P = 0.019)以及大于1.5 cm的病变(95.8% 对61.9%,P = 0.031)时,其准确性高于ERCP组织采样,但在评估胆管内病变和小于1.5 cm的病变时两者相似。在近端、远端和胰腺病变的分析中,两种方法之间无显著差异。
在诊断恶性胆管狭窄方面,EUS-FNA优于ERCP联合刷检细胞学和胆管内活检钳活检,主要体现在对胆管外病变以及大于1.5 cm病变的评估中。将ERCP组织采样与EUS-FNA联合使用是可行的,两种技术的并发症发生率相似,联合使用可大大提高诊断准确性。