Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 58, Issue 4, pp 1110–1115 | Cite as

Cholangiopancreatoscopy and Endoscopic Ultrasound for Indeterminate Pancreaticobiliary Pathology

  • Abdul H. Khan
  • Greg L. Austin
  • Norio Fukami
  • Amrita Sethi
  • Brian C. Brauer
  • Raj J. Shah
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Techniques to confirm suspected pancreaticobiliary (PB) malignancy when index sampling is non-diagnostic include cholangiopancreatoscopy (CP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). However, comparative data are lacking.

Aim

The purpose of this study was to compare the yield of EUS and CP for the diagnosis of PB pathology.

Methods

Consecutive patients with indeterminate PB pathology who underwent both CP and EUS within 3 months of each other were retrospectively identified. For CP, tissue sampling included biopsy under direct inspection (cholangioscopy-directed biopsy), biopsy following CP with fluoroscopic guidance (cholangioscopy-assisted biopsy), or brush cytology. For EUS–FNA, lesions included ductal strictures or hypoechoic masses. A comparison of operating characteristics between CP and EUS utilizing tissue confirmation or 12-month clinical course consistent with either benign or malignant disease was performed.

Results

Between February 2000 and June 2007, 66 (33 males, 33 females, median age 64.5) patients with indeterminate PB pathology who had undergone both CP and EUS within 3 months of each other were included. Lesions amenable to sampling were noted in 59 CP and 50 EUS patients. On follow-up, 39 patients had neoplasia and 27 were benign. The sensitivity/specificity for the diagnosis of neoplasia for CP and EUS was 48.7/96.3 % and 33.3/96.3 %, respectively (comparison of sensitivities, P = 0.183). The combined (CP and EUS) sensitivity/specificity was 66.7/96.3 % (P = 0.0064 and P = 0.0001 comparing combined sensitivity vs. sensitivity of either CP alone or EUS alone, respectively).

Conclusions

In patients who undergo both EUS and CP for indeterminate PB pathology, the combined yield of EUS and CP to detect neoplasia appears to be higher than either examination alone.

Keywords

Cholangioscopy Pancreatoscopy ERCP EUS Cholangiocarcinoma Pancreatic cancer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to the tireless efforts of our late colleague, Dr. Yang K. Chen, who contributed to the data. His pioneering work in the field of cholangiopancreatoscopy continues to serve as an inspiration and benchmark to our own aspirations.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Raj J. Shah received unrestricted educational grants from Boston Scientific and Olympus, Inc. No other authors reported pertinent disclosures. IRB approval was obtained to perform the data collection.

References

  1. 1.
    Jarnagin WR, Bowne W, Klimstra DS, et al. Papillary phenotype confers improved survival after resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2005;241:703–712.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krishna NB, Mehra M, Reddy AV, et al. EUS/EUS–FNA for suspected pancreatic cancer: influence of chronic pancreatitis and clinical presentation with or without obstructive jaundice on performance characteristics. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:70–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orr RK. Outcomes in pancreatic cancer surgery. Surg Clin N Am. 2010;90:219–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeWitt J, Misra VL, Leblanc JK, et al. EUS-guided FNA of proximal biliary strictures after negative ERCP brush cytology results. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:325–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jailwala J, Fogel EL, Sherman S, et al. Triple-tissue sampling at ERCP in malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51:383–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosch T, Hofrichter K, Frimberger E, et al. ERCP or EUS for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures? A prospective comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:390–396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shah RJ, Langer DA, Antillon MR, et al. Cholangioscopy and cholangioscopic forceps biopsy in patients with indeterminate pancreaticobiliary pathology. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:219–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosch T, Meining A, Fruhmorgen S, et al. A prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP, MRCP, CT, and EUS in biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:870–876.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Byrne MF, Gerke H, Mitchell RM, et al. Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of bile duct lesions. Endoscopy. 2004;36:715–719.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boujaoude J. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis and therapy of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:3662–3666.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fukuda Y, Tsuyuguchi T, Sakai Y, et al. Diagnostic utility of peroral cholangioscopy for various bile-duct lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:374–382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shah RJ, Adler DG, Conway JD, et al. ASGE technology SER: cholangiopancreatoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:411–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fritscher-Ravens A, Broering DC, Knoefel WT, et al. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of suspected hilar cholangiocarcinoma in potentially operable patients with negative brush cytology. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:45–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdul H. Khan
    • 1
  • Greg L. Austin
    • 2
  • Norio Fukami
    • 2
  • Amrita Sethi
    • 3
  • Brian C. Brauer
    • 2
  • Raj J. Shah
    • 2
  1. 1.Medical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical CampusAuroraUSA
  3. 3.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations