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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Digestive endoscopy 2013-07, Vol.25 (4), p.444-452 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
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 & 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 |