Arjun Nanda1, Jason M Brown1, Stephen H Berger1, Melinda M Lewis2, Emily G Barr Fritcher3, Gregory J Gores4, Steven A Keilin5, Kevin E Woods5, Qiang Cai5, Field F Willingham6. 1. Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 6. Emory University Hospital, 1364 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Brush cytology has a low sensitivity for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma. This study aimed to compare the standard approach (brush cytology) with a triple modality approach utilizing brush cytology, forceps biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridization in terms of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: In a retrospective study at a single academic center, 50 patients underwent triple modality testing. Additionally, 61 patients underwent brush cytology alone. Intervention was endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with brush cytology, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and forceps biopsy. The main outcome measures included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. RESULTS: Overall, 50 patients underwent triple tissue sampling, and 61 patients underwent brush cytology alone. Twenty-two patients were eventually diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma. Brush cytology had a sensitivity of 42%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100% and negative predictive value of 88%. Triple tissue sampling had an overall sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, and negative predictive value of 87%. Within the triple test group, brush cytology had a sensitivity of 27%, forceps biopsy had a sensitivity of 50%, and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis had a sensitivity of 59%. CONCLUSIONS: A triple modality approach results in a marked increase in sensitivity for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma compared with single modality testing such as brush cytology and should be considered in the evaluation of indeterminate or suspicious biliary strictures.
OBJECTIVES: Brush cytology has a low sensitivity for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma. This study aimed to compare the standard approach (brush cytology) with a triple modality approach utilizing brush cytology, forceps biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridization in terms of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: In a retrospective study at a single academic center, 50 patients underwent triple modality testing. Additionally, 61 patients underwent brush cytology alone. Intervention was endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with brush cytology, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and forceps biopsy. The main outcome measures included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. RESULTS: Overall, 50 patients underwent triple tissue sampling, and 61 patients underwent brush cytology alone. Twenty-two patients were eventually diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma. Brush cytology had a sensitivity of 42%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100% and negative predictive value of 88%. Triple tissue sampling had an overall sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100%, and negative predictive value of 87%. Within the triple test group, brush cytology had a sensitivity of 27%, forceps biopsy had a sensitivity of 50%, and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis had a sensitivity of 59%. CONCLUSIONS: A triple modality approach results in a marked increase in sensitivity for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma compared with single modality testing such as brush cytology and should be considered in the evaluation of indeterminate or suspicious biliary strictures.
Authors: J Jailwala; E L Fogel; S Sherman; K Gottlieb; J Flueckiger; L G Bucksot; G A Lehman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Emily G Barr Fritcher; Benjamin R Kipp; Kevin C Halling; Trynda N Oberg; Sandra C Bryant; Robert F Tarrell; Gregory J Gores; Michael J Levy; Amy C Clayton; Thomas J Sebo; Lewis R Roberts Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-02-14 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Richard J Farrell; Banke Agarwal; Steven L Brandwein; John Underhill; Ram Chuttani; Douglas K Pleskow Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Emily G Barr Fritcher; Benjamin R Kipp; Jeffrey M Slezak; Laura E Moreno-Luna; Gregory J Gores; Michael J Levy; Lewis R Roberts; Kevin C Halling; Thomas J Sebo Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 2.493
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
Authors: Karan Kaura; Tarek Sawas; Fateh Bazerbachi; Andrew C Storm; John A Martin; Gregory J Gores; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Mark D Topazian; Michael J Levy; Bret T Petersen; Vinay Chandrasekhara Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Samuel Han; Philip Tatman; Sanjana Mehrotra; Sachin Wani; Augustin R Attwell; Steven A Edmundowicz; Brian C Brauer; Mihir S Wagh; Hazem T Hammad; Raj J Shah Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Christian Brooks; Valerie Gausman; Chanthel Kokoy-Mondragon; Khushboo Munot; Sunil P Amin; Amit Desai; Claudine Kipp; John Poneros; Amrita Sethi; Frank G Gress; Michel Kahaleh; Vundavalli V Murty; Reem Sharaiha; Tamas A Gonda Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-01-20 Impact factor: 3.199