Udayakumar Navaneethan1, Basile Njei2, Vennisvasanth Lourdusamy3, Rajesh Konjeti3, John J Vargo3, Mansour A Parsi3. 1. Digestive Disease Institute, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Orlando, Florida, USA. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 3. Digestive Disease Institute, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures typically involves collection and analysis of tissue or cells. Brush cytology and intraductal biopsies that are routinely performed during ERCP to assess malignant-appearing biliary strictures are limited by relatively low sensitivity. OBJECTIVE: To study the comparative effectiveness of brushings for cytology and intraductal biopsies in the etiology of biliary strictures. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SETTING: Referral center. PATIENTS: PUBMED and Embase databases were reviewed for studies published to April 2014 where diagnostic correlation of histology was available. INTERVENTION: Database and review of study findings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity and specificity of brushings for the diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40%-50%) and 99% (95% CI, 98%-100%), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio to detect malignant biliary strictures was 33.43 (95% CI, 14.29-78.24). For intraductal biopsies, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 48.1% (95% CI, 42.8%-53.4%) and 99.2% (95% CI, 97.6%-99.8%), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio to detect malignant biliary strictures was 43.18 (95% CI, 19.39-95.83). A combination of both modalities only modestly increased the sensitivity (59.4%; 95% CI, 53.7%-64.8%) with a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98.8%-100.0%). The Begg-Mazumdar and Egger tests indicated a low potential for publication bias. LIMITATIONS: Inclusion of low-quality studies. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that both brushings and biopsy are comparable and have limited sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures. A combination of both only modestly increases the sensitivity.
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures typically involves collection and analysis of tissue or cells. Brush cytology and intraductal biopsies that are routinely performed during ERCP to assess malignant-appearing biliary strictures are limited by relatively low sensitivity. OBJECTIVE: To study the comparative effectiveness of brushings for cytology and intraductal biopsies in the etiology of biliary strictures. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SETTING: Referral center. PATIENTS: PUBMED and Embase databases were reviewed for studies published to April 2014 where diagnostic correlation of histology was available. INTERVENTION: Database and review of study findings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity and specificity of brushings for the diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40%-50%) and 99% (95% CI, 98%-100%), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio to detect malignant biliary strictures was 33.43 (95% CI, 14.29-78.24). For intraductal biopsies, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 48.1% (95% CI, 42.8%-53.4%) and 99.2% (95% CI, 97.6%-99.8%), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio to detect malignant biliary strictures was 43.18 (95% CI, 19.39-95.83). A combination of both modalities only modestly increased the sensitivity (59.4%; 95% CI, 53.7%-64.8%) with a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98.8%-100.0%). The Begg-Mazumdar and Egger tests indicated a low potential for publication bias. LIMITATIONS: Inclusion of low-quality studies. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that both brushings and biopsy are comparable and have limited sensitivity for the diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures. A combination of both only modestly increases the sensitivity.
Authors: Jordan M Winter; John L Cameron; Kurtis A Campbell; Meghan A Arnold; David C Chang; Joann Coleman; Mary B Hodgin; Patricia K Sauter; Ralph H Hruban; Taylor S Riall; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Keith D Lillemoe; Charles J Yeo Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Tim O Lankisch; Jochen Metzger; Ahmed A Negm; Katja Vosskuhl; Eric Schiffer; Justyna Siwy; Tobias J Weismüller; Andrea S Schneider; Kathrin Thedieck; Ralf Baumeister; Petra Zürbig; Eva M Weissinger; Michael P Manns; Harald Mischak; Jochen Wedemeyer Journal: Hepatology Date: 2011-01-03 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Jung Gu Park; Gyoo-Sik Jung; Jong Hyouk Yun; Byung Chul Yun; Sang Uk Lee; Byung Hoon Han; Ji Ho Ko Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wim Laleman; Kristof Verraes; Werner Van Steenbergen; David Cassiman; Frederik Nevens; Schalk Van der Merwe; Chris Verslype Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 4.584