Literature DB >> 15280978

Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of bile duct lesions.

M F Byrne1, H Gerke, R M Mitchell, H L Stiffler, K McGrath, M S Branch, J Baillie, P S Jowell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: It is still difficult to differentiate reliably between benign and malignant biliary tract lesions. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has added to the diagnostic power of EUS for other gastrointestinal tumors. A retrospective analysis of experience with FNA sampling of bile duct lesions was therefore carried out. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All EUS-FNA procedures for bile duct masses or strictures were analyzed at our tertiary referral center from May 2000 through October 2002. Data for EUS findings, the results of EUS-FNA, and tissue sampling at surgery were included. EUS-FNA procedures were carried out using a 22-gauge needle. An experienced cytopathologist was present during FNA in all but three cases. Clinical follow-up details were recorded when available for patients in whom a suitable diagnostic gold standard was not available for comparison.
RESULTS: A total of 35 patients underwent EUS-FNA of bile duct lesions during the study period. There were no complications. Data for EUS-FNA of bile duct masses or strictures and tissue obtained at surgery were available for 23 patients. If positive cytology at surgical pathology is taken as the gold standard, EUS-FNA has a diagnostic yield for cancer of 100 % (if atypia/inconclusive findings in the FNA sample are regarded as benign). Eleven patients had a definite malignancy on surgical pathology. Of these 11 patients, five had a finding of malignancy on EUS-FNA, giving a sensitivity of 45 % (if FNA cytology reported as atypia/inconclusive is regarded as benign). Twelve patients had findings of no malignancy from tissue obtained at surgery. Of these 12 patients, nine had benign pathology and three had atypia/inconclusive findings in the EUS-FNA sample (specificity of 100 % if atypia/inconclusive findings are considered benign). A further 12 patients did not have surgical specimens for comparison with EUS-FNA results. Four patients had definite findings of malignancy on EUS-FNA alone, and one patient had FNA findings suspicious for malignancy. Seven patients had negative or equivocal EUS-FNA results. These 12 patients are described but excluded from further analysis, as a gold standard was not available for comparison. However, clinical follow-up data were available for eight of these 12 patients, and in each case the follow-up findings were compatible with previous benign or malignant EUS-FNA findings.
CONCLUSIONS: The practice of EUS-FNA has improved the diagnostic yield of EUS. These results suggest that it is a safe and useful procedure for investigating biliary masses or strictures that have hitherto caused considerable diagnostic confusion, especially in patients with negative brush cytology findings. The possibility of false-negative findings remains, but core biopsy needles may improve the situation. The results of further studies are awaited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15280978     DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-825657

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  28 in total

Review 1.  Focal intrahepatic strictures: a review of diagnosis and management.

Authors:  David Yeo; Marcos Vinicius Perini; Vijayaragavan Muralidharan; Christopher Christophi
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.647

Review 2.  Endoscopic ultrasound in the evaluation of radiologic abnormalities of the liver and biliary tree.

Authors:  Girish Mishra; Jason D Conway
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2009-04

Review 3.  The role of endoscopic ultrasound in biliary strictures.

Authors:  Jason D Conway; Girish Mishra
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2008-04

4.  EUS-FNA for suspected malignant biliary strictures after negative endoscopic transpapillary brush cytology and forceps biopsy.

Authors:  Yasuhiro Ohshima; Ichiro Yasuda; Hiroshi Kawakami; Masaki Kuwatani; Tsuyoshi Mukai; Takuji Iwashita; Shinpei Doi; Masanori Nakashima; Yoshinobu Hirose; Masahiro Asaka; Hisataka Moriwaki
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 7.527

5.  Quality indicators for EUS.

Authors:  Sachin Wani; Michael B Wallace; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; Michael L Kochman; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Jeffrey L Tokar
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 6.  The usefulness of SpyGlass™ choledochoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of biliary disorders.

Authors:  J B Williamson; P V Draganov
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2012-12

Review 7.  Endoscopic management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Andrea Parodi; Deborah Fisher; Marc Giovannini; Todd Baron; Massimo Conio
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 46.802

8.  EUS-guided FNA for biliary disease as first-line modality to obtain histological evidence.

Authors:  Saori Onda; Takeshi Ogura; Yoshitaka Kurisu; Daisuke Masuda; Tatsushi Sano; Wataru Takagi; Shinya Fukunishi; Kazuhide Higuchi
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 4.409

9.  Endoscopic transpapillary brush cytology and forceps biopsy in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Andreas Weber; Claus von Weyhern; Falko Fend; Jochen Schneider; Bruno Neu; Alexander Meining; Hans Weidenbach; Roland M Schmid; Christian Prinz
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 10.  Multimodal treatment strategies for advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Matthew J Weiss; David Cosgrove; Joseph M Herman; Neda Rastegar; Ihab Kamel; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.445

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.