Literature DB >> 16638704

Endobiliary brush biopsy: Intra- and interobserver variation in cytological evaluation of brushings from bile duct strictures.

Sven Adamsen1, Marianne Olsen, Marianne Bille Jendresen, Susanne Holck, A Glenthøj.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Obtaining cytological specimens by wire-guided endobiliary brushing at the time of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a convenient way to reach a diagnosis. Sensitivity for malignant disease is generally around 50% and specificity around 100%. The present study was designed to assess the reproducibility of the cytological examination.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Samples were obtained from 55 consecutive patients with biliary duct strictures that eventually turned out to be caused by malignant disease in 41 patients (73%). The cytology specimens were evaluated twice in different random order with an interval of at least 4 months by two pathologists blinded to the final diagnoses. Suitability for diagnosis (suitable, suboptimal or unsuitable) and cytologic diagnosis (benign, atypical, suspicious for malignancy and malignant cells) were registered. Kappa analysis was applied.
RESULTS: Regarding suitability for diagnosis, the two observers reproduced their findings in 84% (kappa 0.76) and 87% (0.59) (p>0.05), while the interobserver variations on the two occasions were 76% and 78% (kappa 0.49 and 0.58, respectively) (p>0.05). Five percent of samples were rated as inadequate for diagnosis in at least one reading; 18% were suboptimal and 62-82% were suitable. The observers reproduced their cytological diagnosis in 77% and 71% (weighted kappa 0.83 and 0.75) (p>0.05), and agreed on the cytological diagnosis in 65% and 73% (weighted kappa 0.65 and 0.75) (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The intra- and interobserver agreement in cytological evaluation of endobiliary brushings from bile duct strictures is generally good. The rates of inadequate and suboptimal samples can probably be reduced by modifications of the brush design.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16638704     DOI: 10.1080/00365520500389099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0036-5521            Impact factor:   2.423


  4 in total

1.  Cytologic predictors of malignancy in bile duct brushings: a multi-reviewer analysis of 60 cases.

Authors:  Vaidehi Avadhani; Ezgi Hacihasanoglu; Bahar Memis; Burcin Pehlivanoglu; Krisztina Z Hanley; Uma Krishnamurti; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Lauren M Daniels; Alexa A Freedman; Michael Goodman; Volkan Adsay; Michelle D Reid
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 2.  Diagnostic Approach to Suspected Perihilar Malignancy.

Authors:  Evgeny Solonitsyn; Alexander Dechêne
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2021-01-19

3.  Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines.

Authors:  Martha B Pitman; Barbara A Centeno; Syed Z Ali; Muriel Genevay; Ed Stelow; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; C Max Schmidt; William R Brugge; Lester J Layfield
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 2.091

4.  Performance of bile aspiration plus brushing to diagnose malignant biliary strictures during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  Gael S Roth; Philippe Bichard; Michele Fior-Gozlan; Hubert Roth; Jean Auroux; Olivier Risse; Christian Letoublon; Marie Hélène Laverrière; Ivan Bricault; Vincent Leroy; Thomas Decaens
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-08-09
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.