de Peralta-Venturina M N, Wong D K, Purslow M J, Kini S R
Division of Cytopathology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
Diagn Cytopathol. 1996 Jun;14(4):334-48. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199605)14:4<334::AID-DC12>3.0.CO;2-L.
A retrospective review of bile (BL) and biliary tract brushings (Br) obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) was undertaken to determine the sensitivity and specificity of cytology in the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancies. A total of 104 cytologic specimens (PTC-BL 15, PTC-Br 13, ERCP-BL 8, ERCP-Br 68) received between 1990 and mid-1994 from 77 patients who had undergone ERCP and/or PTC primarily for biliary stricture were reviewed. Specimens were unsatisfactory/ inadequate in 11 (10.6%), benign in 41 (39.4%), suspicious in 25 (24%), and positive for malignant cells in 27 (26%). Follow-up was available in 74/77 patients; 46 (59.7%) had tissue confirmation while 28 (32.5%) had adequate clinical follow-up based on chart review. Of those with histologic confirmation, there were 32 malignant and 14 benign cases. The overall sensitivity and specificity of PTC- and ERCP-obtained cytologic specimens were 88.9 and 95.7% respectively. There was only one false positive case (ERCP-Br). Overall positive predictive value was 96% negative predictive value 88%, and accuracy 96%. PTC had a significantly lower sensitivity rate (42.8%) and higher rate for unsatisfactory specimens (21%) compared with ERCP-obtained material (100 and 1.9%). Bile obtained by PTC or ERCP appeared less sensitive in detecting malignancies compared with endoscopic brushing using either technique (BL 50% vs. Br 100%). All three false negative cases were PTC-BL specimens. Of the 17 suspicious cases, eight were confirmed histologically as malignant, four were clinically consistent with malignancy, and five showed marked inflammatory atypia on biopsy. Positive predictive value and accuracy rate of a "suspicious cytology" diagnosis were 69 and 80.5%, respectively. Inadequate specimen, poor cellular preservation, and cells obscured by bile all interfere with proper cytologic evaluation. Experience is necessary to appreciate subtle malignant changes in well differentiated carcinomas. Communication between the cytopathologist and the clinician is critical in the accurate interpretation and proper management of the patients.
对通过内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)和经皮经肝胆管造影术(PTC)获取的胆汁(BL)和胆道刷检样本(Br)进行回顾性研究,以确定细胞学检查在胰腺胆道恶性肿瘤诊断中的敏感性和特异性。对1990年至1994年年中期间从77例主要因胆道狭窄接受ERCP和/或PTC检查的患者中获取的104份细胞学标本(PTC-BL 15份、PTC-Br 13份、ERCP-BL 8份、ERCP-Br 68份)进行了回顾。11份标本(10.6%)不满意/不充分,41份为良性(39.4%),25份可疑(24%),27份发现恶性细胞阳性(26%)。77例患者中有74例获得随访;46例(59.7%)有组织学确诊,28例(32.5%)根据病历审查有充分的临床随访。在有组织学确诊的患者中,有32例恶性和14例良性病例。PTC和ERCP获取的细胞学标本的总体敏感性和特异性分别为88.9%和95.7%。只有1例假阳性病例(ERCP-Br)。总体阳性预测值为96%,阴性预测值为88%,准确率为96%。与ERCP获取的样本(100%和1.9%)相比,PTC的敏感性率显著较低(42.8%),不满意标本率较高(21%)。与使用任何一种技术的内镜刷检相比,通过PTC或ERCP获取的胆汁在检测恶性肿瘤方面似乎不太敏感(BL为50%,而Br为100%)。所有3例假阴性病例均为PTC-BL标本。在17例可疑病例中,8例经组织学确诊为恶性肿瘤,4例临床与恶性肿瘤一致,5例活检显示明显的炎症异型性。“可疑细胞学”诊断的阳性预测值和准确率分别为69%和80.5%。标本不充分、细胞保存不佳以及细胞被胆汁遮盖均会干扰正确的细胞学评估。识别高分化癌中的细微恶性变化需要经验。细胞病理学家与临床医生之间的沟通对于准确解读和妥善管理患者至关重要。