| Literature DB >> 31579705 |
Judith E Baars1, Mathew Keegan1, Mark H Bonnichsen1, Patrick Aepli1, Ruben Theyventhiran1, Elizabeth Farrell1, James G Kench2, Payal Saxena1, Arthur J Kaffes1.
Abstract
Background and study aims Diagnostic sensitivity for indeterminate biliary lesions remains suboptimal. Cytology techniques may mitigate the impediment of small cholangioscopic specimens. Our primary aim was to compare cell block cytology (CB) with standard histology for foregut SpyBite (SB) specimens. Our secondary aim was to assess CB in biliary SB biopsies. Patients and methods This was a two-phase prospective pilot study. In phase one, a prospective pilot study, foregut SB specimens from three sites (4 per site per patient per processing technique) were allocated to CB or histology, and assessed by a single, blinded pathologist. The gold standard comprised two standard forceps (CFB) histological specimens per site per patient. Specimen ease of processing, size and number, adequacy for diagnosis and artefact were evaluated. In phase two, CB was used for consecutive patients with indeterminate biliary lesions, and compared with phase one CB results. Results In phase one, 240 SB foregut biopsies were performed in 10 patients, 227 specimens recorded by pathologist. Specimen origin was identified in 100 % and 97 % of histology and CB batches respectively. Specimens were significantly larger in the histology group (2.02 mm vs 1.49 mm, P < 0.05). There was a trend to less crush artifact with CB, and no difference in processing difficulty. In phase two, 11 patients (63.0 ±12.7 years, 91 % female) underwent SpyGlass (SG) assessment of suspected indeterminate stricture (n = 8) or mass (n = 3), and six underwent SB. All CB specimens were adequate for diagnosis. Specimen parameters were not significantly different from luminal CB outcomes. Conclusions In this pilot study, cell block cytology showed similar results as histological analysis of SpyBite specimens in the analysis of biliary stricture.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31579705 PMCID: PMC6773591 DOI: 10.1055/a-0950-9554
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1Outline of methods for Phase one.
Fig. 2Sample processing. Low ( a ) and high power ( b ) of biliary cell block processed samples consistent with reactive epithelial changes ( a , arrow). Biliary biopsy histologically processed samples showing inflammation and fibrosis ( c, d arrows), high grade dysplasia ( e, f arrows) and adenocarcinoma ( g, h arrows)
Comparison of Luminal CB Specimen (Phase 1) and Biliary CB Specimen (Phase 2)
| Luminal cell block | Biliary cell block |
| |
| No.patients biopsied | 10 | 6 | |
| Total no. biopsies | 105 | 20 | |
| Mean no. biopsies per patient per site (SD) | 3.57 (0.86) | 3.3 (0.77) | NS |
| Mean specimen size in mm (SD) | 1.49 (0.49) | 1.1 (0.74) | NS |
| Adequate tissue for diagnosis (%) | 29/30 (97 %) | 11/11 (100 %) | NS |
| Crush artifacts (%) | 3/30 (10 %) | 2/11 (18 %) | NS |
NS, not significant
Patient demographics.
| Phase 1 | Phase 2 |
| |
| Mean age (years, SD) | 59.7 (18.7) | 63 (12.7) | NS |
| Gender (% female) | 40 | 91 | NS |
|
| |||
Indeterminate stricture | 8 | ||
Mass lesion | 3 | ||
NS, not significant; SD, standard deviation
Comparison of cell block and histology in luminal samples (Phase 1).
| Phase 1 | |||
| Cell block | Histology |
| |
| No. patients biopsied | 10 | 10 | |
| Total no. biopsies | 105 | 122 | |
| Mean specimen size in mm (SD) | 1.49 (0.49) | 2.02 (0.55) | < 0.001 |
| Mean no. biopsies per patient per site (SD) | 3.57 (0.86) | 4.1 (0.58) | NS |
| Correct Identification of site (%) | 29/30 (97 %) | 30/30 (100 %) | NS |
|
| |||
Tissue transfer (%) | 2 /30 (7 %) | 3 /30 (10 %) | NS |
Paraffin embedding (%) | 8/30 (27 %) | 4/30 (13 %) | NS |
| Crush artifacts (%) | 3/30 (10 %) | 9/30 (30 %) | NS |
SD, standard deviation; NS, not significant