Pathology & Oncology Research

, 11:145 | Cite as

Early diagnosis of pancreatobiliary duct malignancies by brush cytology and biopsy

  • Gabor Elek
  • Tibor Gyökeres
  • Eszter Schäfer
  • Mária Burai
  • Ferenc Pintér
  • Ákos Pap
Article
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Two hundred and five preoperative intraductal samplings (brushing and biopsy) were evaluated from 113 patients with biliary or Wirsung duct strictures. One hundred and three strictures could be specified by histology of the operative specimens, autopsy, or by the patients’ clinical course. Preoperative diagnostic efficacy depended on the tumor location (it was the best for ampullary and parapapillary tumors), but the average quantitative indices for sensitivity, absolute sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic accuracy of cytology were 53%, 20%, 100%, 100%, 25%, 59%, respectively. The same values for biopsy were 43%, 34%, 100%, 100%, 36% and 56%. These figures improved after simultaneous cytology and biopsy. Close cooperation with the endoscopist was necessary in cases of negative, inconclusive and dysplastic (27%) samples. Repetition of sampling improved the results by 8%. Among the 26 preoperative false negative cases, sampling-, technical- and interpretative errors occurred in 84%, 4% and 12%, respectively. Revision of samples revealed 4 malignant cases among the false negative cytologic brushings. Reclassification of specimens considering the latest criteria-primary and secondary malignant features, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanINs), etc. - resulted in improvement of the diagnostic efficiency.

Key words

intraductal biopsy intraductal cytology pancreatobiliary strictures sensitivity and specificity samplingprocessing- and interpretive errors 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Adsay V, Logani S, Sarkar F, et al: Foamy gland pattern of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 24: 493–504, 2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albores-Saavedra J, Henson DE, Klimstra DS: Tumors of the gallbladder, extrahepatic bile ducts and ampulla of Vater. In: Atlas of Tumor Pathology. Third series, Fascicle 27, Armed Forces Inst. Washington, 2000, pp 44–53, 147–150, 177, 191–194, 250–256.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Kaisi N, Siegler EE: Fine needle aspiration cytology of the pancreas. Acta Cytol 33: 145–152, 1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andea A, Sarkar F, Adsay VN: Clinicopathological correlates of pancreatic intraepithel neoplasia. Mod Pathol 16: 996–1006, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bajtai A, Nemesánszky E: The future of the pathology -from the side of clinical pathology. Orv Hetil 143: 867–873, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bardales RH, Stanley MW, Simpson DD, et al: Diagnostic value of brush cytology in the diagnosis of duodenal, biliary and ampullary neoplasms. Am J Clin Pathol 109: 540–548, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang KJ, Nguyen P, Erickson RA, et al: Clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 45: 387–393, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen MB, Wittchow RJ, Johlin FC, et al: Brush cytology of the extrahepatic biliary tract: comparison of cytologic features of adenocarcinoma and benign biliary strictures. Mod Pathol 8: 498–502, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Peralta-Venturina MN, Wong DK, Purslow MJ, et al: Biliarytract cytology in specimens obtained by direct cholangiographic procedures. Diagn Cytopathol 14: 334–348, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Domagk D, Poremba C, Dietl KH, et al: Endoscopic transpapillary biopsies and intraductal ultrasonography in the diagnostics of bile duct strictures. Gut 51: 240–244, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Earnhardt RC, McQuone SJ, Minasi JS, et al: Intraoperative fine needle aspiration of pancreatic and extrahepatic biliary masses. Surg Gynecol Obstet 177: 147–152, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elek G, Györi S, Tóth B, et al: Flistological evaluation of preoperative biopsies from ampulla Vateri. Pathol Oncol Res 9: 32–41, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glasbrenner B, Ardan M, Boeck W, et al: Prospective evaluation of brush cytology of biliary strictures during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 31: 712–717, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gyökeres T, Schäfer E, Gelley A, et al: The sensitivity of the intraductal cytology and biopsy in pancreatobiliary malignancies. Endoscopy 33 (Suppl I): 1833-A, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henke AC, Jensen CS, Cohen MB: Cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in biliary and pancreatic duct brushings. Adv Anat Pathol 9: 301–308, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hruban RH, Adsay NV, Albores-Saavedra J, et al: Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a new nomenclature and classification system for pancreatic duct lesions. Am J Surg Pathol 25: 579–586, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jailwala J, Fogel EL, Sherman S, et al: Triple tissue sampling at ERCP in malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 51: 383–390, 2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kocjan G, Smith AN: Bile duct brushings cytology: potential pitfalls in diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 16: 358–363, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kovács F, Gyökeres T, Elek G, et al: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction -prolonged medical treatment or early endoscopic sphincter ablation. Orv Hetil 143: 2829–2834, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kubota Y, Takaoka M, Tani K, et al: Endoscopic transpapillary biopsy for diagnosis of patients with pancreaticobiliary ductal strictures. Am J Gastroenterol 88: 1700–1704, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurzawinski T, Deery A, Davidson BR: Diagnostic value of cytology for biliary stricture. Br J Surg 80: 414–421, 1993.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Layfield LJ, Wax TD, Lee JG, et al: Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings. Acta Cytol 39: 11–18, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee JG, Leung JW, Baillie J, et al: Benign, dysplastic, or malignant -making sense of endoscopic brush cytology. Am J Gastroenterol 90: 722–726, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Logrono R, Kurtycz DF, Molina CP, et al: Analysis of falsenegative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124: 387–392, 2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mansfield JC, Griffin SM, Wadehra V, et al: A prospective evaluation of cytology from biliary strictures. Gut 40: 671–677, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McGuire DE, Venu RP, Brown RD, et al: Brush cytology for pancreatic carcinoma: an analysis of factors influencing results. Gastrointest Endosc 44: 300–304, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Merchant NB, Conlon KC, Saigo P, et al: Positive peritoneal cytology predicts unresectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 188: 421–426, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Okonkwo AM, De Frias DVS, Gunn R, et al: Reclassification of „atypical” diagnoses in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Acta Cytol 47: 435–442, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Osnes M, Serck-Hanssen A, Kristensen O, et al: Endoscopic retrograde brush cytology in patients with primary and secondary malignancies of the pancreas. Gut 20: 279–284, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ponchon T, Gagnon P, Berger F, et al: Value of endobiliary brush cytology and biopsies for the diagnosis of malignant bile duct stenosis: results of a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 42: 565–572, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ponsioen CY, Vrouenraets SME, van Milligen de Wit AWM, et al: Value of brush cytology for dominant strictures in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Endoscopy 31: 305–309, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pugliese V, Conio M, Nicoló G, et al: Endoscopic retrograde forceps biopsy and brush cytology of biliary strictures: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 42: 520–526, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Renshaw AA, Madge R, Jiroutek M, et al: Bile duct brushing cytology: statistical analysis of proposed diagnostic criteria. Am J Clin Pathol 110: 635–640, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Solcia E, Capell C, Klöppel G: Tumors of the pancreas. In: Atlas of Tumor Pathology. Third series, Fascicle 27, Armed Forces Inst. Washington, 2000, pp 53–64, 253.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stewart CJR, Mills PR, Carter R, et al: Brush cytology in the assessment of pancreatico-biliary strictures: a review of 406 cases. J Clin Pathol 54: 449–455, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stewart CJR, Burke GM: Value of p53 immunostaining in pancreatico-biliary brush cytology specimens. Diagn Cytopathol 23: 308–313, 2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stewart CJR, Stephen MR, Ferrier RK: Hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis in bile duct brush cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 19: 149–150, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stewart CJR, Carter R, Imrie CW, et al: Brush cytology of intraduct papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas. Cytopathology 8: 343–348, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sturm PDJ, Rauws EAJ, Hruban RH, et al: Clinical value of Kras codon 12 analysis and endobiliary brush cytology for the diagnosis of malignant extrahepatic bile duct stenosis. Clin Cancer Res 5: 629–635, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sugiyama M, Atomi Y, Wada N, et al: Endoscopic transpapillary bile duct biopsy without sphincterotomy for diagnosing biliary strictures: a prospective comparative study with bile and brush cytology. Am J Gastroenterol 91: 465–467, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tamada K, Kurihara K, Tomiyama T, et al: How many biopsies should be. performed during percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy to diagnose biliary tract cancer? Gastrointest Endosc 50: 653–658, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tascilar M, Sturm PDJ, Caspers E, et al: Diagnostic p53 immunostaining of endobiliary brush cytology. Cancer 87: 306–311, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van Es JM, Polak MM, van den Berg FM, et al: Molecular markers for diagnostic cytology of neoplasms in the head region of the pancreas: mutation of K-ras and overexpression of the p53 protein product. J Clin Pathol 48: 218–222, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Montes H, et al: Accuracy and complication rate of brush cytology from bile duct versus pancreatic duct. Gastrointest Endosc 49: 322–327, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vellet D, Leiman G, Mair S, et al: Fine needle aspiration cytology of mucinous cystadenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Acta Cytol 32: 43–48, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Winternitz T, Járai B, Székely E, et al: The role of the preoperative cytology at patients with pancreatic head mass. Z Gastroenterol 41: 146-A, 1993.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ylagan LR, Liu LH, Maluf HM: Endoscopic bile duct brushing of malignant pancreatic biliary strictures: retrospective study with comparison of conventional smear and ThinPrep® techniques. Diagn Cytopathol 28: 196–204, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zalatnai A: Pancreatic cancer a continuing challenge in oncology. Pathol Oncol Res 9: 252–263, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zábó A, Barócsai G, Bodó M, et al: About the bile cytology in connection with three cases. Magyar Sebészet 51: 207–210, 1998. (In Hungarian only)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zen Y, Harada K, Sasaki M, et al: IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis with and without hepatic inflammatory pseudotumor and sclerosing pancreatitis associated sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Surg Pathol 28: 1193–1203, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Arányi Lajos Foundation 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabor Elek
    • 1
  • Tibor Gyökeres
    • 2
  • Eszter Schäfer
    • 2
  • Mária Burai
    • 2
  • Ferenc Pintér
    • 2
  • Ákos Pap
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PathologyCentral Railway Hospital and PolyclinicBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of GastroenterologyCentral Railway Hospital and PolyclinicBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations