• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

两种胆管内刷检细胞学设备诊断可疑恶性胆道狭窄的比较:随机对照试验。

Comparison of two intraductal brush cytology devices for suspected malignant biliary strictures: randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2023 Jun;37(6):4566-4573. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-09916-9. Epub 2023 Feb 27.

DOI:10.1007/s00464-023-09916-9
PMID:36849566
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10234858/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary brush cytology is commonly used to diagnose malignant pancreatobiliary strictures. This trial compared the sensitivity of two intraductal brush cytology devices.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial in which consecutive patients with suspected malignant, extrahepatic biliary strictures were randomized (1:1) to a dense or conventional brush cytology device. Primary endpoint was sensitivity. Interim analysis was conducted after 50% of the patients completed follow-up. Results were interpreted by a data safety monitoring board.

RESULTS

Between June 2016 and June 2021, 64 patients were randomized to the dense (27 patients, 42%) or conventional brush (37 patients, 58%). Malignancy was diagnosed in 60 patients (94%) and benign disease in 4 patients (6%). Diagnoses were confirmed by histopathology in 34 patients (53%), cytopathology in 24 patients (38%), and clinical or radiological follow up in 6 patients (9%). Sensitivity of the dense brush was 50%, compared to 44% for the conventional brush (p = 0·785).

DISCUSSION

The results of this randomized controlled trial showed that the sensitivity of a dense brush is not superior to a conventional brush for diagnosing malignant extrahepatic pancreatobiliary strictures. This trial was prematurely ended for reasons of futility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register number; NTR5458.

摘要

背景

经内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)联合胆管刷检细胞学检查常用于诊断恶性胰胆管狭窄。本试验比较了两种胆管内刷检细胞学设备的敏感性。

方法

这是一项随机对照试验,连续入组怀疑恶性、肝外胆道狭窄的患者,按照 1:1 比例随机分配至密集型或常规型刷检细胞学设备组。主要终点为敏感性。在 50%的患者完成随访后进行中期分析。结果由数据安全监测委员会解读。

结果

2016 年 6 月至 2021 年 6 月,64 例患者被随机分配至密集型(27 例,42%)或常规型刷检组(37 例,58%)。60 例(94%)患者诊断为恶性疾病,4 例(6%)为良性疾病。34 例(53%)患者通过组织病理学、24 例(38%)通过细胞学、6 例(9%)通过临床或影像学随访确诊。密集型刷检的敏感性为 50%,常规型刷检为 44%(p=0.785)。

讨论

本随机对照试验结果表明,对于诊断恶性肝外胰胆管狭窄,密集型刷检的敏感性并不优于常规型刷检。本试验因无效而提前终止。

试验注册

荷兰临床试验注册中心编号:NTR5458。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fe76/10234858/78d3c896b7e2/464_2023_9916_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fe76/10234858/78d3c896b7e2/464_2023_9916_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fe76/10234858/78d3c896b7e2/464_2023_9916_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison of two intraductal brush cytology devices for suspected malignant biliary strictures: randomized controlled trial.两种胆管内刷检细胞学设备诊断可疑恶性胆道狭窄的比较:随机对照试验。
Surg Endosc. 2023 Jun;37(6):4566-4573. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-09916-9. Epub 2023 Feb 27.
2
Comparative effectiveness of biliary brush cytology and intraductal biopsy for detection of malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.胆管刷检细胞学和导管内活检检测恶性胆管狭窄的比较效果:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):168-76. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.017. Epub 2014 Nov 1.
3
EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP-based tissue sampling in suspected malignant biliary obstruction: results of a prospective, single-blind, comparative study.在疑似恶性胆管梗阻中,超声内镜引导下细针穿刺活检(EUS-FNA)优于基于内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)的组织采样:一项前瞻性、单盲、对比研究的结果
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Jul;80(1):97-104. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.12.031. Epub 2014 Feb 19.
4
Diagnostic value of new biliary biopsy cannulae for malignant bile duct strictures via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pathway.经内镜逆行胰胆管造影途径的新型胆胰管活检插管对恶性胆管狭窄的诊断价值。
Asian J Surg. 2024 Jan;47(1):471-476. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.04.108. Epub 2023 May 2.
5
Biliary Brush Cytology Revisited.胆道刷检细胞学再探讨。
Acta Cytol. 2016;60(2):167-72. doi: 10.1159/000446149. Epub 2016 May 25.
6
Routine brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for assessment of pancreatobiliary strictures.常规刷检细胞学检查和荧光原位杂交技术评估胰胆管狭窄。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jan;75(1):65-73. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.040. Epub 2011 Nov 10.
7
Efficacy of endoscopic wire guided biliary brushing in the evaluation of biliary strictures.内镜钢丝引导下胆道刷检在评估胆道狭窄中的疗效
Trop Gastroenterol. 2003 Oct-Dec;24(4):215-7.
8
Endoscopic retrograde forceps biopsy and brush cytology of biliary strictures: a prospective study.内镜逆行胆管狭窄钳取活检及刷检细胞学检查:一项前瞻性研究。
Gastrointest Endosc. 1995 Dec;42(6):520-6. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(95)70004-8.
9
Predictive factors for positive diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures by transpapillary brush cytology and forceps biopsy.经乳头刷检细胞学和钳取活检对恶性胆管狭窄阳性诊断的预测因素
J Dig Dis. 2016 Jan;17(1):44-51. doi: 10.1111/1751-2980.12311.
10
Analysis of microRNA expression in brush cytology specimens improves the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary cancer.分析刷取细胞学标本中的 microRNA 表达可提高胰胆肿瘤的诊断水平。
Pancreatology. 2019 Sep;19(6):873-879. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2019.04.001. Epub 2019 Apr 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Diagnostic Approach to Biliary Strictures.胆管狭窄的诊断方法
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 Jan 30;15(3):325. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15030325.

本文引用的文献

1
More Endoscopy-Based Brushing Passes Improve the Detection of Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.更多基于内镜的刷检次数可提高恶性胆管狭窄的检出率:一项多中心随机对照试验
Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 May 1;117(5):733-739. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001666. Epub 2022 Feb 2.
2
Brush Cytology, Forceps Biopsy, or Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Diagnosis of Bile Duct Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.刷子细胞学检查、活检钳活检或内镜超声引导下采样用于胆管癌的诊断:一项荟萃分析。
Dig Dis Sci. 2022 Jul;67(7):3284-3297. doi: 10.1007/s10620-021-07138-4. Epub 2021 Jul 14.
3
Efficacy of digital single-operator cholangioscopy and factors affecting its accuracy in the evaluation of indeterminate biliary stricture.
数字单操作胆管镜检查的疗效及其对不确定胆道狭窄评估准确性的影响因素。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Feb;91(2):385-393.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.015. Epub 2019 Sep 18.
4
Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in Patients With Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.新辅助 FOLFIRINOX 方案在边界可切除胰腺癌患者中的应用:系统评价和患者水平的荟萃分析。
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Aug 1;111(8):782-794. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz073.
5
Integrating next-generation sequencing to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-obtained biliary specimens improves the detection and management of patients with malignant bile duct strictures.将下一代测序技术整合到经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)获得的胆汁标本中,可提高恶性胆管狭窄患者的检出率和诊治水平。
Gut. 2020 Jan;69(1):52-61. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317817. Epub 2019 Apr 10.
6
Outcomes of Different Methods for Analysis of Biliary Brush Cytology and of Factors Associated with Positive Diagnosis in an Age-Dependent Retrospective Review.一项年龄相关性回顾性研究中不同方法分析胆管刷检细胞学的结果及与阳性诊断相关的因素
GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2018 Dec;26(1):5-13. doi: 10.1159/000487153. Epub 2018 Feb 28.
7
Investigation of Factors Affecting the Sensitivity of Bile Duct Brush Cytology.影响胆管刷检细胞学敏感性的因素研究
Intern Med. 2019 Feb 1;58(3):329-335. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.1551-18. Epub 2018 Aug 24.
8
Dilation catheter-guided mini-forceps biopsy improves the diagnostic accuracy of malignant biliary strictures.扩张导管引导的微型活检钳活检提高了恶性胆道狭窄的诊断准确性。
Endoscopy. 2018 Aug;50(8):809-812. doi: 10.1055/a-0630-0878. Epub 2018 Jul 2.
9
Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.晚期胰腺癌的化疗与放疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 20;3(3):CD011044. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011044.pub2.
10
Diagnostic yield and accuracy of a new cytology brush design compared to standard brush cytology for evaluation of biliary strictures.与标准刷检细胞学相比,一种新型细胞学刷设计在评估胆管狭窄方面的诊断率和准确性。
Diagn Cytopathol. 2018 Mar;46(3):234-238. doi: 10.1002/dc.23875. Epub 2017 Dec 12.