Loading…
Value of endobiliary brush cytology and biopsies for the diagnosis of malignant bile duct stenosis: results of a prospective study
Background: Before considering a nonsurgical method of management of a bile duct stenosis, a tissue diagnosis is highly desirable. In a prospective study we have evaluated the feasibility and reliability of endobiliary brush cytology and biopsies performed at the time of endoscopic retrograde cholan...
Saved in:
Published in: | Gastrointestinal endoscopy 1995-12, Vol.42 (6), p.565-572 |
---|---|
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!
|
Summary: | Background: Before considering a nonsurgical method of management of a bile duct stenosis, a tissue diagnosis is highly desirable. In a prospective study we have evaluated the feasibility and reliability of endobiliary brush cytology and biopsies performed at the time of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.
Methods: Two hundred thirty-three consecutive patients underwent an attempt at endobiliary brush cytology and biopsies of bile duct stenosis when no mass was detected on ultrasound and CT scan.
Results: The material for cytology was sufficient for analysis in 210 cases (90%) and biopsies were obtained in 128 cases (55%). One hundred fifteen patients had both cytology and biopsies (49%). For the diagnosis of malignant stenosis, the sensitivity was 35% for cytology, 43% for biopsies, and 63% for the combination of cytology and biopsies. For both cytology and biopsies, the specificity was 97%. In the cases of cancer primarily involving the bile ducts, the sensitivity was 86% when combining both cytology and biopsies.
Conclusions: Endobiliary sampling is technically difficult and has a limited sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignant biliary stenosis. Biopsies should be combined with cytology to increase the sensitivity. (Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:565-72.) |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0016-5107 1097-6779 |
DOI: | 10.1016/S0016-5107(95)70012-9 |