BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Single-operator cholangioscopy (SOC) has been suggested to be a cost-effective strategy for the detection of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). The aim of this study is to compare the performance characteristics of SOC-guided biopsies and transpapillary biopsies with standard sampling techniques for the detection of CCA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing SOC between 1/2007 and 10/2018 at a single academic center was performed. Demographic, procedural, and outcomes data were recorded and analyzed using STATA 14.0. Sensitivity comparison between diagnostic tests was performed using exact McNemar test exclusively among patients with CCA. Two-sided p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were included; 36 (39.1%) with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), 41 (44.6%) with CCA, and median follow-up was 15.1 months. In the overall cohort, brush cytology demonstrated a sensitivity of 44.7% and increased with the addition of FISH (56.8%; p = 0.12), FISH with SOC-guided biopsy (71.4%; p = 0.03), and FISH with transpapillary biopsy (64.5%; p = 0.01). However, in patients with PSC, there was no significant improvement in sensitivity with the addition of SOC-guided biopsy or transpapillary biopsy in addition to FISH when compared to brush cytology. There was no difference in the rates of overall adverse events (14% vs. 23.2%; p = 0.27) or infection (3% vs. 4%; p = 0.83) in patients with and without PSC. CONCLUSIONS: SOC-guided and transpapillary biopsies improve sensitivity for the detection of cholangiocarcinoma in combination with other ERCP-based techniques compared to brush cytology alone. However, while safe, these modalities do not significantly improve the sensitivity for the detection of malignancy in PSC patients.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Single-operator cholangioscopy (SOC) has been suggested to be a cost-effective strategy for the detection of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). The aim of this study is to compare the performance characteristics of SOC-guided biopsies and transpapillary biopsies with standard sampling techniques for the detection of CCA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing SOC between 1/2007 and 10/2018 at a single academic center was performed. Demographic, procedural, and outcomes data were recorded and analyzed using STATA 14.0. Sensitivity comparison between diagnostic tests was performed using exact McNemar test exclusively among patients with CCA. Two-sided p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were included; 36 (39.1%) with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), 41 (44.6%) with CCA, and median follow-up was 15.1 months. In the overall cohort, brush cytology demonstrated a sensitivity of 44.7% and increased with the addition of FISH (56.8%; p = 0.12), FISH with SOC-guided biopsy (71.4%; p = 0.03), and FISH with transpapillary biopsy (64.5%; p = 0.01). However, in patients with PSC, there was no significant improvement in sensitivity with the addition of SOC-guided biopsy or transpapillary biopsy in addition to FISH when compared to brush cytology. There was no difference in the rates of overall adverse events (14% vs. 23.2%; p = 0.27) or infection (3% vs. 4%; p = 0.83) in patients with and without PSC. CONCLUSIONS: SOC-guided and transpapillary biopsies improve sensitivity for the detection of cholangiocarcinoma in combination with other ERCP-based techniques compared to brush cytology alone. However, while safe, these modalities do not significantly improve the sensitivity for the detection of malignancy in PSC patients.
Authors: Benjamin R Kipp; Linda M Stadheim; Shari A Halling; Nicole L Pochron; Scott Harmsen; David M Nagorney; Thomas J Sebo; Terry M Therneau; Gregory J Gores; Piet C de Groen; Todd H Baron; Michael J Levy; Kevin C Halling; Lewis R Roberts Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Michelle A Anderson; Vasu Appalaneni; Tamir Ben-Menachem; G Anton Decker; Dayna S Early; John A Evans; Robert D Fanelli; Deborah A Fisher; Laurel R Fisher; Norio Fukami; Joo Ha Hwang; Steven O Ikenberry; Rajeev Jain; Terry L Jue; Khalid Khan; Mary Lee Krinsky; Phyllis M Malpas; John T Maple; Ravi N Sharaf; Amandeep K Shergill; Jason A Dominitz; Brooks D Cash Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Evangelos Kalaitzakis; George J Webster; Kofi W Oppong; Yiannis Kallis; Panagiotis Vlavianos; Matthew Huggett; Muhammad F Dawwas; Venkata Lekharaju; Adrian Hatfield; David Westaby; Richard Sturgess Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.566
Authors: Mohamed O Othman; Richard Guerrero; Sherif Elhanafi; Brian Davis; Jesus Hernandez; Jennifer Houle; Indika Mallawaarachchi; Alok Kumar Dwivedi; Marc J Zuckerman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sanjay Y Bangarulingam; Einar Bjornsson; Felicity Enders; Emily G Barr Fritcher; Gregory Gores; Kevin C Halling; Keith D Lindor Journal: Hepatology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Shyam Varadarajulu; Ji Young Bang; Muhammad K Hasan; Udayakumar Navaneethan; Robert Hawes; Shantel Hebert-Magee Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Eric J Vargas; Yaohong Wang; Zongming Eric Chen; Rami Abusaleh; Andrew C Storm; John A Martin; Ryan J Law; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Michael J Levy; Bret Petersen; Vinay Chandrasekhara Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-09-14