FISHing for pancreatobiliary tract malignancy in endoscopic brushings enhances the sensitivity of routine cytology

Cytopathology

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 288-301

  Barr Fritcher, E G ^a   Kipp, B R ^a   Halling, K C ^a   Clayton, A C ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Cholangiocarcinoma; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; ERCP; Fluorescence in situ hybridization; Pancreatobiliary carcinoma; Polysomy

Indexed keywords

4',6 DIAMIDINO 2 PHENYLINDOLE; FLUORESCENT DYE;

ALGORITHM; BILE DUCT CARCINOMA; BLADDER CANCER DETECTION KIT; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COST CONTROL; CYTOLOGY; CYTOTECHNOLOGIST; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ENDOSCOPIC BIOPSY; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND GUIDED FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; FLUORESCENCE MICROSCOPE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEPATOBILIARY SYSTEM; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LABORATORY TEST; PANCREAS CARCINOMA; PANCREATOBILIARY CARCINOMA; PERCUTANEOUS BIOPSY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREVALENCE; PRIMARY SCLEROSING CHOLANGITIS; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TETRASOMY; TIME; TISSUE SECTION; TRISOMY 7; BILE DUCT NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA; CYTODIAGNOSIS; PANCREATIC NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

BILE DUCT NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE; CYTODIAGNOSIS; HUMANS; IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION, FLUORESCENCE; PANCREATIC NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84908575707     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: 13652303     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cyt.12170     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Everhart JE, Ruhl CE. Burden of digestive diseases in the United States Part III: liver, biliary tract, and pancreas. Gastroenterology 2009;136:1134-44.
2. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:9-29.
3. Marsh Rde W, Alonzo M, Bajaj S et al. Comprehensive review of the diagnosis and treatment of biliary tract cancer 2012. Part I: diagnosis, clinical staging and pathology. J Surg Oncol 2012;106:332-8.
4. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63:11-30.
5. Blechacz B, Gores GJ. Cholangiocarcinoma: advances in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Hepatology 2008;48:308-21.
6. Gores GJ, Darwish Murad S, Heimbach JK, Rosen CB. Liver transplantation for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Dig Dis 2013;31:126-9.
7. de Groen PC, Gores GJ, LaRusso NF, Gunderson LL, Nagorney DM. Biliary tract cancers. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1368-78.
8. Schulick RD. Criteria of unresectability and the decision-making process. HPB (Oxford) 2008;10:122-5.
9. Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH et al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1273-81.
10. Hezel AF, Deshpande V, Zhu AX. Genetics of biliary tract cancers and emerging targeted therapies. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3531-40.
11. Blechacz B, Komuta M, Roskams T, Gores GJ. Clinical diagnosis and staging of cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;8:512-22.
12. Burak K, Angulo P, Pasha TM et al. Incidence and risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:523-6.
13. Heimbach JK, Sanchez W, Rosen CB, Gores GJ. Trans-peritoneal fine needle aspiration biopsy of hilar cholangiocarcinoma is associated with disease dissemination. HPB (Oxford) 2011;13:356-60.
14. Volmar KE, 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.
15. Draganov PV, Chauhan S, Wagh MS et al. Diagnostic accuracy of conventional and cholangioscopy-guided sampling of indeterminate biliary lesions at the time of ERCP: a prospective, long-term follow-up study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:347-53.
16. Selvaggi SM. Biliary brushing cytology. Cytopathology 2004;15:74-9.
17. Burnett AS, Calvert TJ, Chokshi RJ. Sensitivity of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography standard cytology: 10-y review of the literature. J Surg Res 2013;184:304-11.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Layfield LJ, Wax TD, Lee JG, Cotton PB. Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings. Acta Cytol 1995;39:11-8.
21. Kocjan G, Smith AN. Bile duct brushings cytology: potential pitfalls in diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:358-63.
22. Cohen MB, Wittchow RJ, Johlin FC, Bottles K, Raab SS. Brush cytology of the extrahepatic biliary tract: comparison of cytologic features of adenocarcinoma and benign biliary strictures. Mod Pathol 1995;8:498-502.
23. Jin YH, Kim SH, Park CK. Diagnostic criteria for malignancy in bile cytology and its usefulness. J Korean Med Sci 1999;14:643-7.
24. Nakajima T, Tajima Y, Sugano I et al. Multivariate statistical analysis of bile cytology. Acta Cytol 1994;38:51-5.
25. Renshaw AA, Madge R, Jiroutek M, Granter SR. Bile duct brushing cytology: statistical analysis of proposed diagnostic criteria. Am J Clin Pathol 1998;110:635-40.
26. Waugh MS, Guy CD, Maygarden SJ et al. Use of the ThinPrep method in bile duct brushings: analysis of morphologic parameters associated with malignancy and determination of interobserver reliability. Diagn Cytopathol 2008;36:651-6.
27. Bjornsson E, Kilander A, Olsson R. CA 19-9 and CEA are unreliable markers for cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Liver 1999;19:501-8.
28. Fisher A, Theise ND, Min A et al. CA19-9 does not predict cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis undergoing liver transplantation. Liver Transpl Surg 1995;1:94-8.
29. Levy C, Lymp J, Angulo P et al. The value of serum CA 19-9 in predicting cholangiocarcinomas in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Dig Dis Sci 2005;50:1734-40.
30. Maestranzi S, Przemioslo R, Mitchell H, Sherwood RA. The effect of benign and malignant liver disease on the tumour markers CA19-9 and CEA. Ann Clin Biochem 1998;35(Pt 1):99-103.
31. Nichols JC, Gores GJ, LaRusso NF et al. Diagnostic role of serum CA 19-9 for cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Mayo Clin Proc 1993;68:874-9.
32. Steinberg W. The clinical utility of the CA 19-9 tumor-associated antigen. Am J Gastroenterol 1990;85:350-5.
33. von Rosen A, Linder S, Harmenberg U, Pegert S. Serum levels of CA 19-9 and CA 50 in relation to Lewis blood cell status in patients with malignant and benign pancreatic disease. Pancreas 1993;8:160-5.
34. Kipp BR, Fritcher EG, Clayton AC et al. Comparison of KRAS mutation analysis and FISH for detecting pancreatobiliary tract cancer in cytology specimens collected during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Mol Diagn 2010;12:780-6.
35. Muller P, Ostwald C, Puschel K et al. Low frequency of p53 and ras mutations in bile of patients with hepato-biliary disease: a prospective study in more than 100 patients. Eur J Clin Invest 2001;31:240-7.
36. Salek C, Benesova L, Zavoral M et al. Evaluation of clinical relevance of examining K-ras, p16 and p53 mutations along with allelic losses at 9p and 18q in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration samples of patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:3714-20.
37. Rumalla A, Baron TH, Leontovich O et al. Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic biliary brush cytology by digital image analysis. Mayo Clin Proc 2001;76:29-33.
38. Sears RJ, Duckworth CW, Decaestecker C et al. Image cytometry as a discriminatory tool for cytologic specimens obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Cancer 1998;84:119-26.
39. Yeaton P, Kiss R, Deviere J et al. Use of cell image analysis in the detection of cancer from specimens obtained during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Clin Pathol 1993;100:497-501.
40. Ohori NP, Fowler MH, Swalsky PA et al. Comparative molecular analysis of loss of heterozygosity in adenocarcinoma in bile duct brushings and corresponding surgical pathology specimens. Cancer 2003;99:379-84.
41. Hart J, Parab M, Mandich D, Cartun RW, Ligato S. IMP3 immunocytochemical staining increases sensitivity in the routine cytologic evaluation of biliary brush specimens. Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:321-6.
42. Ligato S, Zhao H, Mandich D, Cartun RW. KOC (K homology domain containing protein overexpressed in cancer) and S100A4-protein immunoreactivity improves the diagnostic sensitivity of biliary brushing cytology for diagnosing pancreaticobiliary malignancies. Diagn Cytopathol 2008;36:561-7.
43. Bangarulingam SY, Bjornsson E, Enders F et al. Long-term outcomes of positive fluorescence in situ hybridization tests in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology 2010;51:174-80.
44. Boldorini R, Paganotti A, Sartori M et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation in the cytological diagnosis of pancreatobiliary tumours. Pathology 2011;43:335-9.
45. Fritcher EG, Kipp BR, Halling KC et al. A multivariable model using advanced cytologic methods for the evaluation of indeterminate pancreatobiliary strictures. Gastroenterology 2009;136:2180-6.
46. Gonda TA, Glick MP, Sethi A et al. Polysomy and p16 deletion by fluorescence in situ hybridization in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:74-9.
47. Kipp BR, Stadheim LM, Halling SA et al. A comparison of routine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of malignant bile duct strictures. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1675-81.
48. Moreno Luna LE, Kipp B, Halling KC et al. Advanced cytologic techniques for the detection of malignant pancreatobiliary strictures. Gastroenterology 2006;131:1064-72.
49. Smoczynski M, Jablonska A, Matyskiel A et al. Routine brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for assessment of pancreatobiliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:65-73.
50. Rew DA. Significance of aneuploidy. Br J Surg 1994;81:1416-22.
51. Bergquist A, Tribukait B, Glaumann H, Broome U. Can DNA cytometry be used for evaluation of malignancy and premalignancy in bile duct strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis? J Hepatol 2000;33:873-7.
52. Kipp BR, Fritcher EG, del Rosario KM et al. A systematic approach to identifying urothelial cells likely to be polysomic by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2005;27:317-22.
53. Sokolova IA, Halling KC, Jenkins RB et al. The development of a multitarget, multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for the detection of urothelial carcinoma in urine. J Mol Diagn 2000;2:116-23.
54. Henkes DN, Patel SN, Rosenkranz LA, Escobedo JL. The utility of UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration samples directed and obtained by endoscopic ultrasonography. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013;137:64-71.
55. Kubiliun N, Ribeiro A, Fan YS et al. EUS-FNA with rescue fluorescence in situ hybridization for the diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma in patients with inconclusive on-site cytopathology results. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:541-7.
56. Levy MJ, Clain JE, Clayton A et al. Preliminary experience comparing routine cytology results with the composite results of digital image analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:483-90.
57. Campion MB, Kipp BR, Humphrey SK et al. Improving cellularity and quality of liquid-based cytology slides processed from pancreatobiliary tract brushings. Diagn Cytopathol 2010;38:627-32.
58. Kipp BR, Barr Fritcher EG, Pettengill JE, Halling KC, Clayton AC. Improving the accuracy of pancreatobiliary tract cytology with fluorescence in situ hybridization: a molecular test with proven clinical success. Cancer Cytopathol 2013;121:610-9.
59. Kane LE, Root RR, Voss JS et al. Molecular diagnostics, personalized medicine, and the evolving role of the cytotechnologist: an institutional experience. Acta Cytol 2012;56:678-85.
60. Charatcharoenwitthaya P, Enders FB, Halling KC, Lindor KD. Utility of serum tumor markers, imaging, and biliary cytology for detecting cholangiocarcinoma in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology 2008;48:1106-17.
61. Levy MJ, Baron TH, Clayton AC et al. Prospective evaluation of advanced molecular markers and imaging techniques in patients with indeterminate bile duct strictures. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:1263-73.
62. Halling KC, Kipp BR. Fluorescence in situ hybridization in diagnostic cytology. Hum Pathol 2007;38:1137-44.
63. Brankley SM, Fritcher EG, Smyrk TC et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization mapping of esophagectomy specimens from patients with Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 2012;43:172-9.
64. DeHaan RD, Kipp BR, Smyrk TC et al. An assessment of chromosomal alterations detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization and p16 expression in sporadic and primary sclerosing cholangitis-associated cholangiocarcinomas. Hum Pathol 2007;38:491-9.
65. Broberg K, Toksvig-Larsen S, Lindstrand A, Mertens F. Trisomy 7 accumulates with age in solid tumors and non-neoplastic synovia. Genes Chromosom Cancer 2001;30:310-5.
66. Elfving P, Cigudosa JC, Lundgren R et al. Trisomy 7, trisomy 10, and loss of the Y chromosome in short-term cultures of normal kidney tissue. Cytogenet Cell Genet 1990;53:123-5.
67. Baldessarini RJ, Finklestein S, Arana GW. The predictive power of diagnostic tests and the effect of prevalence of illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1983;40:569-73.
68. Barr Fritcher EG, Kipp BR, Voss JS et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis patients with serial polysomy fluorescence in situ hybridization results are at increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:2023-8.
69. Razumilava N, Gores GJ, Lindor KD. Cancer surveillance in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Hepatology 2011;54:1842-52.
70. Razumilava N, Gores GJ. Classification, diagnosis, and management of cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;11:13-21.e1; quiz e3-4.
71. Huddleston BJ, Lamb RD, Gopez EV, Adler DG, Collins BT. Cholangiocarcinoma in a 17-year-old boy with primary sclerosing cholangitis and UroVysion fluorescent in situ hybridization. Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:337-41.
72. Barr Fritcher EG, Voss JS, Jenkins SM et al. Primary sclerosing cholangitis with equivocal cytology: fluorescence in situ hybridization and serum CA 19-9 predict risk of malignancy. Cancer Cytopathol 2013;121:708-17.
73. Witt BL, Kristen Hilden RN, Scaife C et al. Identification of factors predictive of malignancy in patients with atypical biliary brushing results obtained via ERCP. Diagn Cytopathol 2013;41:682-8.
74. Barr Fritcher EG, Caudill JL, Blue JE et al. Identification of malignant cytologic criteria in pancreatobiliary brushings with corresponding positive fluorescence in situ hybridization results. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:442-9.
75. 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.
76. 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.