Literature DB >> 34263382

Brush Cytology, Forceps Biopsy, or Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Diagnosis of Bile Duct Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Seung Bae Yoon1, Sung-Hoon Moon2,3, Sung Woo Ko1, Hyun Lim4,5, Ho Suk Kang4,5, Jong Hyeok Kim4,5.   

Abstract

Endoscopic sampling is essential for tissue diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). To evaluate and compare the diagnostic sensitivities of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided brush cytology biopsy, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in patients with CCA. A comprehensive literature search through multiple databases was conducted for articles published between January 1995 and August 2020. The pooled rates of sensitivity for the diagnosis of CCA and of adverse events were compared among brushing, biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA. In total, 1123 patients with CCA (32 studies), 719 patients (20 studies), 358 patients (13 studies), and 422 patients (17 studies) were tested by brushing, biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA, respectively. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity was 56.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 48.8-63.1%, I2 = 83.0%) with brushing, 67.0% (95% CI 60.2-73.5%, I2 = 72.5%) with biopsy, 70.7% (95% CI 64.1-76.8%, I2 = 42.7%) with brushing & biopsy, and 73.6% (95% CI 64.7-81.5%, I2 = 74.7%) with EUS-FNA. The diagnostic sensitivity was significantly lower for brushing than for biopsy, brushing & biopsy, or EUS-FNA. No significant difference was noted in diagnostic sensitivities among biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA. Adverse events were comparable between the groups. Intraductal biopsy, brushing & biopsy, and EUS-FNA had comparable efficacy and safety for the diagnosis of CCA. Brushing was the least sensitive diagnostic tool compared with intraductal biopsy or EUS-FNA. Given the modest diagnostic sensitivities of intraductal biopsy and EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of CCA, further studies for complementing these techniques with biomarkers may be needed.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cholangiocarcinoma; Diagnosis; ERCP; Endoscopic ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34263382     DOI: 10.1007/s10620-021-07138-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.487


  88 in total

Review 1.  Cholangiocarcinoma 2020: the next horizon in mechanisms and management.

Authors:  Jesus M Banales; Jose J G Marin; Angela Lamarca; Pedro M Rodrigues; Shahid A Khan; Lewis R Roberts; Vincenzo Cardinale; Guido Carpino; Jesper B Andersen; Chiara Braconi; Diego F Calvisi; Maria J Perugorria; Luca Fabris; Luke Boulter; Rocio I R Macias; Eugenio Gaudio; Domenico Alvaro; Sergio A Gradilone; Mario Strazzabosco; Marco Marzioni; Cédric Coulouarn; Laura Fouassier; Chiara Raggi; Pietro Invernizzi; Joachim C Mertens; Anja Moncsek; Sumera Rizvi; Julie Heimbach; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Jordi Bruix; Alejandro Forner; John Bridgewater; Juan W Valle; Gregory J Gores
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 2.  Clinical diagnosis and staging of cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Boris Blechacz; Mina Komuta; Tania Roskams; Gregory J Gores
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-08-02       Impact factor: 46.802

3.  IgG4-Associated Cholangitis in Patients Resected for Presumed Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: a 30-Year Tertiary Care Experience.

Authors:  Eva Roos; Lowiek M Hubers; Robert J S Coelen; Marieke E Doorenspleet; Niek de Vries; Joanne Verheij; Ulrich Beuers; Thomas M van Gulik
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Patients with obstructive jaundice and biliary stricture ± mass lesion on imaging: prevalence of malignancy and potential role of EUS-FNA.

Authors:  Pavan Tummala; Satish Munigala; Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Banke Agarwal
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 3.062

5.  Expert consensus document: Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENS-CCA).

Authors:  Jesus M Banales; Vincenzo Cardinale; Guido Carpino; Marco Marzioni; Jesper B Andersen; Pietro Invernizzi; Guro E Lind; Trine Folseraas; Stuart J Forbes; Laura Fouassier; Andreas Geier; Diego F Calvisi; Joachim C Mertens; Michael Trauner; Antonio Benedetti; Luca Maroni; Javier Vaquero; Rocio I R Macias; Chiara Raggi; Maria J Perugorria; Eugenio Gaudio; Kirsten M Boberg; Jose J G Marin; Domenico Alvaro
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 6.  Evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures.

Authors:  Christopher L Bowlus; Kristin A Olson; M Eric Gershwin
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 7.  Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Sumera Rizvi; Gregory J Gores
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 8.  Cholangiocarcinoma: Current opinion on clinical practice diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms: A review of the literature and a long-standing experience of a referral center.

Authors:  Giovanni Brandi; Michela Venturi; Maria Abbondanza Pantaleo; Giorgio Ercolani
Journal:  Dig Liver Dis       Date:  2015-11-28       Impact factor: 4.088

9.  Diagnosis of biliary tract and ampullary carcinomas.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Tsukada; Tadahiro Takada; Masaru Miyazaki; Shuichi Miyakawa; Masato Nagino; Satoshi Kondo; Junji Furuse; Hiroya Saito; Toshio Tsuyuguchi; Fumio Kimura; Hideyuki Yoshitomi; Satoshi Nozawa; Masahiro Yoshida; Keita Wada; Hodaka Amano; Fumihiko Miura
Journal:  J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg       Date:  2008-02-16

10.  Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: an update.

Authors:  Shahid A Khan; Brian R Davidson; Robert D Goldin; Nigel Heaton; John Karani; Stephen P Pereira; William M C Rosenberg; Paul Tait; Simon D Taylor-Robinson; Andrew V Thillainayagam; Howard C Thomas; Harpreet Wasan
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 23.059

View more
  3 in total

1.  Endoscopic sphincterotomy and endoscopic biliary stenting do not affect the sensitivity of transpapillary forceps biopsy for the diagnosis of bile duct adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Toshinori Aoki; Eizaburo Ohno; Takuya Ishikawa; Yasuyuki Mizutani; Tadashi Iida; Kentaro Yamao; Takeshi Yamamura; Kazuhiro Furukawa; Masanao Nakamura; Takashi Honda; Masatoshi Ishigami; Hiroshi Yatsuya; Hiroki Kawashima
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 2.847

2.  Endoscopic Ultrasound Plus Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Based Tissue Sampling for Diagnosis of Proximal and Distal Biliary Stenosis Due to Cholangiocarcinoma: Results from a Retrospective Single-Center Study.

Authors:  Edoardo Troncone; Fabio Gadaleta; Omero Alessandro Paoluzi; Cristina Maria Gesuale; Vincenzo Formica; Cristina Morelli; Mario Roselli; Luca Savino; Giampiero Palmieri; Giovanni Monteleone; Giovanna Del Vecchio Blanco
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 6.639

3.  Rapid label-free detection of cholangiocarcinoma from human serum using Raman spectroscopy.

Authors:  Peeraya Suksuratin; Rutchanee Rodpai; Vor Luvira; Pewpan M Intapan; Wanchai Maleewong; Oranat Chuchuen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-13       Impact factor: 3.752

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.