Loading…

Prospective randomized controlled study comparing cell block method and conventional smear method for bile cytology

Background and Aim There is a paucity of data on the cell block (CB) method for bile cytology. We compared the diagnostic efficacy of the CB method with that of conventional smear cytology for bile obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in a randomized controlled trial man...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Digestive endoscopy 2013-07, Vol.25 (4), p.444-452
Main Authors: Noda, Yutaka, Fujita, Naotaka, Kobayashi, Go, Ito, Kei, Horaguchi, Jun, Hashimoto, Shinichi, Koshita, Shinsuke, Ishii, Shotaro, Kanno, Yoshihide, Ogawa, Takahisa, Masu, Kaori, Tsuchiya, Takashi, Oikawa, Masaya, Honda, Hiroshi, Sawai, Takashi, Uzuki, Miwa, Fujishima, Fumiyoshi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4974-60127b9601cc5803bdd9bd997f2884f8d2f3300adfb539c9588e1308be3aac9d3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4974-60127b9601cc5803bdd9bd997f2884f8d2f3300adfb539c9588e1308be3aac9d3
container_end_page 452
container_issue 4
container_start_page 444
container_title Digestive endoscopy
container_volume 25
creator Noda, Yutaka
Fujita, Naotaka
Kobayashi, Go
Ito, Kei
Horaguchi, Jun
Hashimoto, Shinichi
Koshita, Shinsuke
Ishii, Shotaro
Kanno, Yoshihide
Ogawa, Takahisa
Masu, Kaori
Tsuchiya, Takashi
Oikawa, Masaya
Honda, Hiroshi
Sawai, Takashi
Uzuki, Miwa
Fujishima, Fumiyoshi
description Background and Aim There is a paucity of data on the cell block (CB) method for bile cytology. We compared the diagnostic efficacy of the CB method with that of conventional smear cytology for bile obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in a randomized controlled trial manner. Methods A total of 137 patients with biliary tract lesions suspicious of malignancy who had undergone bile collection under ERCP were recruited to this study. After sampling, the bile was randomized to the CB method (n = 69) or to smear cytology (n = 68). CB sections were prepared using the sodium alginate method and subjected to hematoxylin‐eosin, Alcian blue–periodic acid–Schiff stain, and immunohistochemical stains. Both Papanicolaou and Giemsa stains were used for smear cytology. Results The final diagnosis was malignancy in 94 patients: bile duct cancer, 42; pancreatic head cancer, 34; gallbladder cancer, 16; and ampullary cancer, two. The diagnostic accuracy of the CB method and that of smear cytology were 64% and 53%, respectively (P = 0.20). The sensitivity of the CB method (53%) was significantly better than that of smear cytology (28%; P = 0.014). Their respective sensitivities were 80% and 31% (P = 0.002) for bile duct cancer, 20% and 15% (P = 1.0) for pancreatic head cancer, and 30% and 67% (P = 0.30) for gallbladder cancer. Conclusion The CB method for bile cytology showed a higher diagnostic yield than smear cytology. Its diagnostic sensitivity was satisfactory in cases of bile duct cancer.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01404.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1373437811</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1373437811</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4974-60127b9601cc5803bdd9bd997f2884f8d2f3300adfb539c9588e1308be3aac9d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE9v2yAYh9G0aknbfYWJ4y52wWAbDjtMSZe26p9p6rTdEAacOcEmBaeL--mLmzbncnkR7-95efUAADFKcTxnqxRTShJcFDjNEM5ShCmi6e4DmB4aH8EUcZwneUHyCTgOYYViklP6CUwywhDjOZqC8NO7sDGqbx4N9LLTrm2ejIbKdb131sZr6Ld6iA_tRvqmW0JlrIWVdWoNW9P_cxpGbAQeTdc3rpMWhtZI_9atnYdVYw1UQ--sWw6n4KiWNpjPr_UE_P5xfj-7SK7vFpez79eJorykSRHXLSsei1I5Q6TSmlea87LOGKM101lNCEJS11VOuOI5YwYTxCpDpFRckxPwdT93493D1oRetE0Yt5edcdsgMCkJJSXDOEbZPqqijuBNLTa-aaUfBEZiVC5WYjQrRrNiVC5elItdRL-8_rKtWqMP4JvjGPi2D_yPEoZ3Dxbz89vxFvlkzzehN7sDL_1aFCUpc_HndiF-8fnNYs7_iivyDEgsoNM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1373437811</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prospective randomized controlled study comparing cell block method and conventional smear method for bile cytology</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Noda, Yutaka ; Fujita, Naotaka ; Kobayashi, Go ; Ito, Kei ; Horaguchi, Jun ; Hashimoto, Shinichi ; Koshita, Shinsuke ; Ishii, Shotaro ; Kanno, Yoshihide ; Ogawa, Takahisa ; Masu, Kaori ; Tsuchiya, Takashi ; Oikawa, Masaya ; Honda, Hiroshi ; Sawai, Takashi ; Uzuki, Miwa ; Fujishima, Fumiyoshi</creator><creatorcontrib>Noda, Yutaka ; Fujita, Naotaka ; Kobayashi, Go ; Ito, Kei ; Horaguchi, Jun ; Hashimoto, Shinichi ; Koshita, Shinsuke ; Ishii, Shotaro ; Kanno, Yoshihide ; Ogawa, Takahisa ; Masu, Kaori ; Tsuchiya, Takashi ; Oikawa, Masaya ; Honda, Hiroshi ; Sawai, Takashi ; Uzuki, Miwa ; Fujishima, Fumiyoshi</creatorcontrib><description>Background and Aim There is a paucity of data on the cell block (CB) method for bile cytology. We compared the diagnostic efficacy of the CB method with that of conventional smear cytology for bile obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in a randomized controlled trial manner. Methods A total of 137 patients with biliary tract lesions suspicious of malignancy who had undergone bile collection under ERCP were recruited to this study. After sampling, the bile was randomized to the CB method (n = 69) or to smear cytology (n = 68). CB sections were prepared using the sodium alginate method and subjected to hematoxylin‐eosin, Alcian blue–periodic acid–Schiff stain, and immunohistochemical stains. Both Papanicolaou and Giemsa stains were used for smear cytology. Results The final diagnosis was malignancy in 94 patients: bile duct cancer, 42; pancreatic head cancer, 34; gallbladder cancer, 16; and ampullary cancer, two. The diagnostic accuracy of the CB method and that of smear cytology were 64% and 53%, respectively (P = 0.20). The sensitivity of the CB method (53%) was significantly better than that of smear cytology (28%; P = 0.014). Their respective sensitivities were 80% and 31% (P = 0.002) for bile duct cancer, 20% and 15% (P = 1.0) for pancreatic head cancer, and 30% and 67% (P = 0.30) for gallbladder cancer. Conclusion The CB method for bile cytology showed a higher diagnostic yield than smear cytology. Its diagnostic sensitivity was satisfactory in cases of bile duct cancer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0915-5635</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1443-1661</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01404.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23808950</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aged ; Ampulla of Vater - pathology ; bile ; Bile - cytology ; bile duct ; Bile Duct Neoplasms - pathology ; cell block method ; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - methods ; Cytodiagnosis - methods ; cytology ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gallbladder Neoplasms - pathology ; Humans ; Male ; Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology ; prospective randomized controlled study ; Prospective Studies ; Reproducibility of Results</subject><ispartof>Digestive endoscopy, 2013-07, Vol.25 (4), p.444-452</ispartof><rights>2012 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy © 2012 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society</rights><rights>2012 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy © 2012 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4974-60127b9601cc5803bdd9bd997f2884f8d2f3300adfb539c9588e1308be3aac9d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4974-60127b9601cc5803bdd9bd997f2884f8d2f3300adfb539c9588e1308be3aac9d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23808950$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Noda, Yutaka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fujita, Naotaka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kobayashi, Go</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ito, Kei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horaguchi, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hashimoto, Shinichi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koshita, Shinsuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishii, Shotaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kanno, Yoshihide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ogawa, Takahisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masu, Kaori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsuchiya, Takashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oikawa, Masaya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Honda, Hiroshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sawai, Takashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uzuki, Miwa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fujishima, Fumiyoshi</creatorcontrib><title>Prospective randomized controlled study comparing cell block method and conventional smear method for bile cytology</title><title>Digestive endoscopy</title><addtitle>Digestive Endoscopy</addtitle><description>Background and Aim There is a paucity of data on the cell block (CB) method for bile cytology. We compared the diagnostic efficacy of the CB method with that of conventional smear cytology for bile obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in a randomized controlled trial manner. Methods A total of 137 patients with biliary tract lesions suspicious of malignancy who had undergone bile collection under ERCP were recruited to this study. After sampling, the bile was randomized to the CB method (n = 69) or to smear cytology (n = 68). CB sections were prepared using the sodium alginate method and subjected to hematoxylin‐eosin, Alcian blue–periodic acid–Schiff stain, and immunohistochemical stains. Both Papanicolaou and Giemsa stains were used for smear cytology. Results The final diagnosis was malignancy in 94 patients: bile duct cancer, 42; pancreatic head cancer, 34; gallbladder cancer, 16; and ampullary cancer, two. The diagnostic accuracy of the CB method and that of smear cytology were 64% and 53%, respectively (P = 0.20). The sensitivity of the CB method (53%) was significantly better than that of smear cytology (28%; P = 0.014). Their respective sensitivities were 80% and 31% (P = 0.002) for bile duct cancer, 20% and 15% (P = 1.0) for pancreatic head cancer, and 30% and 67% (P = 0.30) for gallbladder cancer. Conclusion The CB method for bile cytology showed a higher diagnostic yield than smear cytology. Its diagnostic sensitivity was satisfactory in cases of bile duct cancer.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Ampulla of Vater - pathology</subject><subject>bile</subject><subject>Bile - cytology</subject><subject>bile duct</subject><subject>Bile Duct Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>cell block method</subject><subject>Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - methods</subject><subject>Cytodiagnosis - methods</subject><subject>cytology</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Gallbladder Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>prospective randomized controlled study</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><issn>0915-5635</issn><issn>1443-1661</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkE9v2yAYh9G0aknbfYWJ4y52wWAbDjtMSZe26p9p6rTdEAacOcEmBaeL--mLmzbncnkR7-95efUAADFKcTxnqxRTShJcFDjNEM5ShCmi6e4DmB4aH8EUcZwneUHyCTgOYYViklP6CUwywhDjOZqC8NO7sDGqbx4N9LLTrm2ejIbKdb131sZr6Ld6iA_tRvqmW0JlrIWVdWoNW9P_cxpGbAQeTdc3rpMWhtZI_9atnYdVYw1UQ--sWw6n4KiWNpjPr_UE_P5xfj-7SK7vFpez79eJorykSRHXLSsei1I5Q6TSmlea87LOGKM101lNCEJS11VOuOI5YwYTxCpDpFRckxPwdT93493D1oRetE0Yt5edcdsgMCkJJSXDOEbZPqqijuBNLTa-aaUfBEZiVC5WYjQrRrNiVC5elItdRL-8_rKtWqMP4JvjGPi2D_yPEoZ3Dxbz89vxFvlkzzehN7sDL_1aFCUpc_HndiF-8fnNYs7_iivyDEgsoNM</recordid><startdate>201307</startdate><enddate>201307</enddate><creator>Noda, Yutaka</creator><creator>Fujita, Naotaka</creator><creator>Kobayashi, Go</creator><creator>Ito, Kei</creator><creator>Horaguchi, Jun</creator><creator>Hashimoto, Shinichi</creator><creator>Koshita, Shinsuke</creator><creator>Ishii, Shotaro</creator><creator>Kanno, Yoshihide</creator><creator>Ogawa, Takahisa</creator><creator>Masu, Kaori</creator><creator>Tsuchiya, Takashi</creator><creator>Oikawa, Masaya</creator><creator>Honda, Hiroshi</creator><creator>Sawai, Takashi</creator><creator>Uzuki, Miwa</creator><creator>Fujishima, Fumiyoshi</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201307</creationdate><title>Prospective randomized controlled study comparing cell block method and conventional smear method for bile cytology</title><author>Noda, Yutaka ; Fujita, Naotaka ; Kobayashi, Go ; Ito, Kei ; Horaguchi, Jun ; Hashimoto, Shinichi ; Koshita, Shinsuke ; Ishii, Shotaro ; Kanno, Yoshihide ; Ogawa, Takahisa ; Masu, Kaori ; Tsuchiya, Takashi ; Oikawa, Masaya ; Honda, Hiroshi ; Sawai, Takashi ; Uzuki, Miwa ; Fujishima, Fumiyoshi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4974-60127b9601cc5803bdd9bd997f2884f8d2f3300adfb539c9588e1308be3aac9d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Ampulla of Vater - pathology</topic><topic>bile</topic><topic>Bile - cytology</topic><topic>bile duct</topic><topic>Bile Duct Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>cell block method</topic><topic>Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - methods</topic><topic>Cytodiagnosis - methods</topic><topic>cytology</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Gallbladder Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>prospective randomized controlled study</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Noda, Yutaka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fujita, Naotaka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kobayashi, Go</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ito, Kei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horaguchi, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hashimoto, Shinichi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koshita, Shinsuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ishii, Shotaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kanno, Yoshihide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ogawa, Takahisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masu, Kaori</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsuchiya, Takashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oikawa, Masaya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Honda, Hiroshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sawai, Takashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uzuki, Miwa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fujishima, Fumiyoshi</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Digestive endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Noda, Yutaka</au><au>Fujita, Naotaka</au><au>Kobayashi, Go</au><au>Ito, Kei</au><au>Horaguchi, Jun</au><au>Hashimoto, Shinichi</au><au>Koshita, Shinsuke</au><au>Ishii, Shotaro</au><au>Kanno, Yoshihide</au><au>Ogawa, Takahisa</au><au>Masu, Kaori</au><au>Tsuchiya, Takashi</au><au>Oikawa, Masaya</au><au>Honda, Hiroshi</au><au>Sawai, Takashi</au><au>Uzuki, Miwa</au><au>Fujishima, Fumiyoshi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prospective randomized controlled study comparing cell block method and conventional smear method for bile cytology</atitle><jtitle>Digestive endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Digestive Endoscopy</addtitle><date>2013-07</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>444</spage><epage>452</epage><pages>444-452</pages><issn>0915-5635</issn><eissn>1443-1661</eissn><abstract>Background and Aim There is a paucity of data on the cell block (CB) method for bile cytology. We compared the diagnostic efficacy of the CB method with that of conventional smear cytology for bile obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in a randomized controlled trial manner. Methods A total of 137 patients with biliary tract lesions suspicious of malignancy who had undergone bile collection under ERCP were recruited to this study. After sampling, the bile was randomized to the CB method (n = 69) or to smear cytology (n = 68). CB sections were prepared using the sodium alginate method and subjected to hematoxylin‐eosin, Alcian blue–periodic acid–Schiff stain, and immunohistochemical stains. Both Papanicolaou and Giemsa stains were used for smear cytology. Results The final diagnosis was malignancy in 94 patients: bile duct cancer, 42; pancreatic head cancer, 34; gallbladder cancer, 16; and ampullary cancer, two. The diagnostic accuracy of the CB method and that of smear cytology were 64% and 53%, respectively (P = 0.20). The sensitivity of the CB method (53%) was significantly better than that of smear cytology (28%; P = 0.014). Their respective sensitivities were 80% and 31% (P = 0.002) for bile duct cancer, 20% and 15% (P = 1.0) for pancreatic head cancer, and 30% and 67% (P = 0.30) for gallbladder cancer. Conclusion The CB method for bile cytology showed a higher diagnostic yield than smear cytology. Its diagnostic sensitivity was satisfactory in cases of bile duct cancer.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>23808950</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01404.x</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0915-5635
ispartof Digestive endoscopy, 2013-07, Vol.25 (4), p.444-452
issn 0915-5635
1443-1661
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1373437811
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects Aged
Ampulla of Vater - pathology
bile
Bile - cytology
bile duct
Bile Duct Neoplasms - pathology
cell block method
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - methods
Cytodiagnosis - methods
cytology
Diagnosis, Differential
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gallbladder Neoplasms - pathology
Humans
Male
Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology
prospective randomized controlled study
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
title Prospective randomized controlled study comparing cell block method and conventional smear method for bile cytology
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T16%3A25%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prospective%20randomized%20controlled%20study%20comparing%20cell%20block%20method%20and%20conventional%20smear%20method%20for%20bile%20cytology&rft.jtitle=Digestive%20endoscopy&rft.au=Noda,%20Yutaka&rft.date=2013-07&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=444&rft.epage=452&rft.pages=444-452&rft.issn=0915-5635&rft.eissn=1443-1661&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01404.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1373437811%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4974-60127b9601cc5803bdd9bd997f2884f8d2f3300adfb539c9588e1308be3aac9d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1373437811&rft_id=info:pmid/23808950&rfr_iscdi=true