A new method of biliary sampling for cytopathological examination during endoscopic retrograde cholangiography

American Journal of Gastroenterology

Volumn 102, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 550-557

  Dumonceau, Jean Marc ^a   Casco, Claudia ^b   Landoni, Nestor ^c   Frossard, Jean Louis ^a   Hadengue, Antoine ^a   Pache, Jean Claude ^a   Genevay, Muriel ^a   Morel, Philippe ^a   Kumar, Neeta ^a   Bongiovanni, Massimo ^a  

^a GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

^b Hospital Diego Paroissien   (Argentina)

^c HOSPITAL SAN MARTÍN   (Argentina)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BILIARY TRACT CANCER; CANCER CELL; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMMON BILE DUCT OBSTRUCTION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE;

AGED; BIOPSY; CHOLESTASIS, EXTRAHEPATIC; COMMON BILE DUCT NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; MALE; PROGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 33847291319     PISSN: 00029270     EISSN: 15720241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.01017.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Eisen GM, Dominitz JA, Faigel DO, et al. An annotated algorithmic approach to malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53:849-52.
2. Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, et al. Improvements in survival and clinical benefit with gemcitabine as firstline therapy for patients with advanced pancreas cancer: A randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2403-13.
3. Chua YJ, Cunningham D. Adjuvant treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4532-7.
4. Hines OJ, Reber HA. Pancreatic neoplasms. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2004;20:452-8.
5. Siriwardana HP, Siriwardena AK. Systematic appraisal of the role of metallic endobiliary stents in the treatment of benign bile duct stricture. Ann Surg 2005;242:10-9.
6. Wasan SM, Ross WA, Staerkel GA, et al. Use of expandable metallic biliary stents in resectable pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:2056-61.
7. Ponchon T, Gagnon P, Berger F, et al. Value of endobiliary brush cytology and biopsies for the diagnosis of malignant bile duct stenosis: Results of a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:565-72.
8. Pugliese V, Conio M, Nicolo G, et al. Endoscopic retrograde forceps biopsy and brush cytology of biliary strictures: A prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:520-6.
9. Mansfield JC, Griffin SM, Wadehra V, et al. A prospective evaluation of cytology from biliary strictures. Gut 1997;40:671-7.
10. Glasbrenner B, Ardan M, Boeck W, et al. Prospective evaluation of brush cytology of biliary strictures during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 1999;31:712-7.
11. Jailwala J, Fogel EL, Sherman S, et al. Triple-tissue sampling at ERCP in malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:383-90.
12. Farrell RJ, Jain AK, Brandwein SL, et al. The combination of stricture dilation, endoscopic needle aspiration, and biliary brushings significantly improves diagnostic yield from malignant bile duct strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:587-94.
13. de Bellis M, Fogel EL, Sherman S, et al. Influence of stricture dilation and repeat brushing on the cancer detection rate of brush cytology in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:176-82.
14. Rosch T, Hofrichter K, Frimberger E, et al. ERCP or EUS for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures? A prospective comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:390-6.
15. Fogel EL, deBellis M, McHenry L, et al. Effectiveness of a new long cytology brush in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction: A prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:71-7.
16. Harewood GC, Baron TH, Stadheim LM, et al. Prospective, blinded assessment of factors influencing the accuracy of biliary cytology interpretation. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1464-9.
17. Logrono R, Kurtycz DF, Molina CP, et al. Analysis of false-negative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures: The experience at 2 university hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:387-92.
18. Casco C, Martins D, Lettieri S, et al. A new device for abrasive cytology sampling during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Experience in infectious and neoplastic diseases. Endoscopy 1999;31:348-51.
19. Infection control during gastrointestinal endoscopy: Guidelines for clinical application. From the ASGE. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;49:836-41.
20. Rey JF. Protocol for reprocessing endoscopic accessories. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Endoscopy 2000;32:81-3.
21. Layfield LJ, Wax TD, Lee JG, et al. Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings. Acta Cytol 1995;39:11-8.
22. Lee JG, Leung JW, Baillie J, et al. Benign, dysplastic, or malignant - making sense of endoscopic bile duct brush cytology: Results in 149 consecutive patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90:722-6.
23. Camp R, Rutkowski MA, Atkison K, et al. A prospective, randomized, blinded trial of cytological yield with disposable cytology brushes in upper gastrointestinal tract lesions. Am J Gastroenterol 1992;87:1439-42.
24. Duggan MA, Brasher P, Medlicott SA. ERCP-directed brush cytology prepared by the Thinprep method: Test performance and morphology of 149 cases. Cytopathology 2004;15:80-6.
25. Cotton PB. Outcomes of endoscopy procedures: Struggling towards definitions. Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:514-8.
26. Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Montes H, et al. Accuracy and complication rate of brush cytology from bile duct versus pancreatic duct. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;49:322-7.
27. Khalid A, Pal R, Sasatomi E, et al. Use of microsatellite marker loss of heterozygosity in accurate diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancy from brush cytology samples. Gut 2004;53:1860-5.
28. Stewart CJ, Mills PR, Carter R, et al. Brush cytology in the assessment of pancreatico-biliary strictures: A review of 406 cases. J Clin Pathol 2001;54:449-55.
29. Rey JR, Axon A, Budzynska A, et al. Guidelines of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (E.S.G.E.) antibiotic prophylaxis for gastrointestinal endoscopy. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Endoscopy 1998;30:318-24.
30. Motte S, Deviere J, Dumonceau JM, et al. Risk factors for septicemia following endoscopic biliary stenting. Gastroenterology 1991;101:1374-81.
31. Giorgio PD, Luca LD. Comparison of treatment outcomes between biliary plastic stent placements with and without endoscopic sphincterotomy for inoperable malignant common bile duct obstruction. World J Gastroenterol 2004;10:1212-4.
32. Howell DA, Parsons WG, Jones MA, et al. Complete tissue sampling of biliary strictures at ERCP using a new device. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:498-502.
33. Layfield LJ, Cramer H. Primary sclerosing cholangitis as a cause of false positive bile duct brushing cytology: Report of two cases. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:119-24.
34. Ponsioen CY, Vrouenraets SM, van Milligen de Wit AW, et al. Value of brush cytology for dominant strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Endoscopy 1999;31:305-9.
35. ASGE Technology Status Evaluation Report: Disposable endoscopic accessories. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:477-9.
36. Brand B, Thonke F, Obytz S, et al. Stent retriever for dilation of pancreatic and bile duct strictures. Endoscopy 1999;31:142-5.
37. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996;335:909-18.
38. Mani V, Cartwright K, Dooley J, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A report by a Working Party for the British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Committee. Endoscopy 1997;29:114-9.