Sobhrakhshankhah Elham, Sohrabi Masoudreza, Norouzi Hamid Reza, Zamani Farhad, Ajdarkosh Hossein, Nikkhah Mehdi, Khoonsari Mahmood Reza, Faraji Amir Hossein
Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease Research Center (GILDRC), Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Middle East J Dig Dis. 2021 Oct;13(4):294-301. doi: 10.34172/mejdd.2021.238. Epub 2021 Jun 13.
BACKGROUND Differentiation of benign and malignant biliary strictures plays a pivotal role in managing biliary strictures. Brush cytology via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are two diagnostic methods. In the present study, we aimed to compare the accuracy of the results of EUS-FNA and ERCP-based sampling of biliary strictures. METHODS In a prospective study, between January 2019 and March 2020, patients with indeterminate biliary strictures who had no history of hepatobiliary surgery, opium usage, cancer of pancratobiliary system, and acute liver disease were selected. They underwent EUS and ERCP in the same session. They were followed up for 6 months, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of these imaging modalities were compared. RESULTS A total of 60 patients were enrolled. 28 lesions were located in the distal and 32 lesions in the proximal parts of the biliary tree. 55 malignant and 5 benign lesions were diagnosed. The sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA and ERCP tissue sampling were 78.2% and 80.0% versus 50.9% and 55.0%, respectively ( = 0.024). The combination of both methods improved the sensitivity and accuracy to 85.5% and 86.7%, respectively. Regarding the location, EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP-brush cytology in diagnosing proximal lesions with sensitivity and specificity of 73.3% and 75.0% vs. 50.0% and 53.1%, respectively ( = 0.04). CONCLUSION EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP brushing in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures, particularly in distal lesions. Combining ERCP brushing and EUS-FNA improves the diagnosis accuracy.
背景 良性和恶性胆管狭窄的鉴别在胆管狭窄的管理中起着关键作用。通过内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)进行的刷检细胞学检查和内镜超声引导下细针穿刺抽吸术(EUS-FNA)是两种诊断方法。在本研究中,我们旨在比较EUS-FNA和基于ERCP的胆管狭窄采样结果的准确性。方法 在一项前瞻性研究中,选取了2019年1月至2020年3月期间患有不确定胆管狭窄且无肝胆手术史、未使用鸦片、无胰胆管系统癌症及急性肝病的患者。他们在同一会诊中接受了EUS和ERCP检查。对他们进行了6个月的随访,并比较了这些成像方式的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值以及准确性。结果 共纳入60例患者。28个病变位于胆管树的远端,32个病变位于近端。诊断出55个恶性病变和5个良性病变。EUS-FNA和ERCP组织采样的敏感性和准确性分别为78.2%和80.0%,而分别为50.9%和55.0%(P = 0.024)。两种方法联合使用可将敏感性和准确性分别提高到85.5%和86.7%。就位置而言,EUS-FNA在诊断近端病变方面优于ERCP刷检细胞学检查,其敏感性和特异性分别为73.3%和75.0%,而分别为50.0%和53.1%(P = 0.04)。结论 在不确定胆管狭窄的诊断中,EUS-FNA优于ERCP刷检,尤其是在远端病变中。联合ERCP刷检和EUS-FNA可提高诊断准确性。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006-9
Dig Endosc. 2025-7
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025-1-30
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024-2-24
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020-5-25
Histopathology. 2020-1
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2019-4
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016-6-14
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016-10
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2016-5