Bile duct brushings cytology - Improving sensitivity of diagnosis using the ThinPrep® technique: A review of 113 cases

Cytopathology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 225-233

  Sheehan, M M ^a   Fraser, A ^a   Ravindran, R ^a   McAteer, D ^a  

^a ABERDEEN ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ampulla; Bile duct brushings; Biliary tree; Conventional smears; Cytology; Cytopathology; Diagnostic techniques; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Pancreas; Sensitivity; ThinPrep technique

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BILE DUCT; BILE DUCT CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTODIAGNOSIS; CYTOLOGY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEPATOBILIARY SYSTEM; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PANCREAS; PANCREAS CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; REVIEW; TECHNIQUE; VATER PAPILLA; VATER PAPILLA CARCINOMA;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AMPULLA OF VATER; BIOPSY; CELL NUCLEUS; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE; COMMON BILE DUCT NEOPLASMS; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HISTOCYTOLOGICAL PREPARATION TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PANCREATIC NEOPLASMS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34447536420     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: 13652303     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2007.00447.x     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Selvaggi SM. Biliary brushing cytology. Cytopathology 2004 15 : 74 9.
2. Logrono R, Kurtycz DF, Molina CP, Trivedi VA, Wong JY, Block KP. Analysis of false-negative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000 124 : 387 92.
3. Trent V, Khurana KK, Pisharodi LR. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of endoscopic bile duct brushing in the evaluation of biliary strictures. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999 123 : 712 5.
4. Kocjan G, Smith AN. Bile duct brushings cytology: potential pitfalls in diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 1997 16 : 358 63.
5. Cohen MB, Wittchow RJ, Johlin FC, Bottles K, Raab SS. Brush cytology of the extrahepatic biliary tract: comparison of cytological features of adenocarcinoma and benign biliary strictures. Mod Pathol 1995 8 : 498 502.
6. Kurzawinski TR, Deery A, Dooley JS, Hobbs KE, Davidson BR. A prospective study of biliary cytology in 100 patients with bile duct strictures. Hepatology 1993 18 : 1399 403.
7. Minamiguchi S, Hoda RS. Bile duct brushings on ThinPrep®: experience with 68 specimens. Diagn Cytopathol 2004 30 : 292 3.
8. Logrono R, Wong JY. Reporting the presence of significant epithelial atypia in pancreaticobiliary brush specimens lacking evidence of obvious carcinoma: impact on performance measures. Acta Cytol 2004 48 : 613 21.
9. Ylagan LR, Liu LH, Maluf HM. Endoscopic bile duct brushing of malignant pancreatic biliary strictures; retrospective study with comparison of conventional smears and ThinPrep® technique. Diagn Cytopathol 2003 28 : 196 204.
10. Duggan MA, Brasher P, Medlicott SA. ERCP-directed brush cytology prepared by the ThinPrep® method: test performance and morphology in 149 cases. Cytopathology 2004 15 : 80 6.
11. Volmar E, Vollmer RT, Routbort MJ, Creager AJ. Pancreatic and bile duct brushing cytology in 1000 cases: review of findings and comparison of preparation methods. Cancer 2006 108 : 231 8.
12. Wight CO, Zaitoun AM, Boulton-Jones JR, Dunkley C, Beckingham IJ, Ryder SD. Improving diagnostic yield of biliary brushings cytology for pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. Cytopathology 2004 15 : 87 92.
13. Siddiqui MT, Gokaslan ST, Saboorian MH, Carrick K, Ashfaq R. Comparison of ThinPrep® and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings. Cancer 2003 99 : 205 10.
14. Stewart CJR, 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.
15. Layfield LJ, Wax TD, Lee JG, Cotton PB. Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings. Acta Cytol 1995 39 : 11 8.
16. De Peralta-Venturina MN, Wong DK, Purslow MJ, Kini SR. Biliary tract cytology in specimens obtained by direct cholangiographic procedures: a study of 74 cases. Diagn Cytopathol 1996 14 : 334 48.
17. Osnes M, Serk-Hanssen A, Myren J. Endoscopic retrograde brush cytology (ERBC) of the biliary tree and pancreatic ducts. Scand J Gastroenterol 1975 10 : 829 31.
18. Michael CW, Hunter B. Interpretation of fine needle aspirates processed by the ThinPrep® technique: cytologic artefacts and diagnostic pitfalls. Diagn Cytopathol 2000 23 : 6 13. 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.
19. Boberg KM, Jebsen O, Clausen OP, Foss A, Aabakken L, Schrumpf E. Diagnostic benefit of biliary brush cytology in cholangiocarcinoma in primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Hepatol 2006 45 : 568 74.
20. Baskin-Bey ES, Morono Luna LE, Gores GJ. Diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC: a sight on cytology. J Hepatol 2006 45 : 476 9.