Objectives: To improve the diagnostic accuracy of bile smear cytology, we assessed two cell-yielding procedures. Study Design: One hundred and forty-one patients with biliary stricture underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and conventional brush sampling. The cytologist cut the brush head off the support wire, centrifuged it directly in tissue culture medium for 1 min at 3,000 rpm, centrifuged the medium again and then smeared the cell pellet onto slides. The remaining sheath tube was then cut into 12-cm segments, which were centrifuged in a centrifuge tube for 1 min at 3,000 rpm, collected and submitted for cytospin preparation. Results: The final histopathological diagnoses based on surgery, biopsy or clinical progression were evaluated for sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Using conventional smears alone, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in patients with biliary stricture were 66.1, 80.7 and 68.8%, respectively. For conventional smears, brush washing and sheath tube contents together, the sensitivity improved to 73.9%, specificity to 100% and accuracy to 78.7%. In the patients with bile duct carcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 87.3, 100 and 90.7%, respectively. Conclusion: Superior diagnostic accuracy was achieved when conventional smear procedures were combined with the two new procedures.

Elek G, Gyökeres T, Schäfer E, Burai M, Pintér F, Pap A: Early diagnosis of pancreatobiliary duct malignancies by brush cytology and biopsy. Pathol Oncol Res 2005;11:145-155.
Layfield LJ, Wax TD, Lee JG, Cotton PB: Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings. Acta Cytol 1995;39:11-18.
Stewart CJ, Mills PR, Carter R, O'Donohue J, Fullarton G, Imrie CW, Murray WR: Brush cytology in the assessment of pancreatico-biliary strictures: a review of 406 cases. J Clin Pathol 2001;54:449-455.
Hirooka Y, Nakaizumi A, Oka T, Naito Y, Arisaka Y, Minamiguchi S, Haba R, Takenaka A, Furuhata A, Masuda D: Report of the clinical study for methods to improve the diagnostic accuracy of bile cytology. Diagnostic bile cytology criteria. Jpn Soc Clin Cytol 2010;49:7-14.
Logrono R, Kurtycz DF, Molina CP, Trivedi VA, Wong JY, Block KP: Analysis of false-negative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;123:387-392.
Mansfield JC, Griffin SM, Wadehra V, Matthewson K: A prospective evaluation of cytology from biliary stricture. Gut 1997;40:671-677.
Rösch T, Hofrichter K, Frimberger E, Meining A, Born P, Weigert N, Allescher HD, Classen M, Barbur M, Schenck U, Werner M: ERCP or EUS for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures? A prospective comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:390-396.
Fogel EL, deBellis M, McHenry L, Watkins JL, Chappo J, Cramer H, Schmidt S, Lazzell-Pannell L, Sherman S, Lehman GA: Effectiveness of a new long cytology brush in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:71-77.
Jailwala J, Fogel EL, Sherman S, Gottlieb K, Flueckiger J, Bucksot LG, Lehman GA: Triple-tissue sampling at ERCP in malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:383-390.
Dumonceau JM, Macias Gomez C, Casco C, Genevay M, Marcolongo M, Bongiovanni M, Morel P, Majno P, Hadengue A: Grasp or brush for biliary sampling at endoscopic retrograde cholangiography? A blinded randomized control trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:333-340.
Asioli S, Accinelli G, Pacchioni D, Bussolati G: Diagnosis of biliary tract lesions by histological sectioning of brush bristles as alternative to cytological smearing. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;104:1274-1281.
Dumonceau JM, Casco C, Landoni N, Frossard JL, Hadengue A, Pache JC, Genevay M, Morel P, Kumar N, Bongiovanni M: A new method of biliary sampling for cytopathological examination during endoscopic retrograde cholaniography. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:550-557.
Volmar KE, Vollmer RT, Routbort MJ, Creager AJ: Pancreatic and bile duct brushing cytology in 1000 cases. Review of findings and comparison of preparation methods. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2006;108:231-238.
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 2003;28:196-204.
Sturm PD, Rauws EA, Hruban RH, Caspers E, Ramsoekh TB, Huibregtse K, Noorduyn LA, Offerhaus GJ: Clinical value of K-ras codon 12 analysis and endobiliary brush cytology for the diagnosis of malignant extrahepatic bile stenosis. Clin Cancer Res 1999;5:629-635.
Kipp BR, Stadheim LM, Halling SA, Pochron NL, Harmsen S, Nagorney DM, Sebo TJ, Therneau TM, Gores GJ, de Groen PC, Baron TH, Levy MJ, Halling KC, Roberts LR: A comparison of routine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of malignant bile duct strictures. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1675-1681.
Fukushima N, Suzuki M, Fukayama M: Analysis of K-ras oncogene mutation directly applied to atypical cell clusters on cytologic smear slides of bile and pancreatic juice. Pathol Int 1998;48:33-40.
Curcio G, Traina M, Mocciaro F, Liotta R, Gentile R, Tarantino I, Barresi L, Granata A, Tuzzolino F, Gridelli B: Intraductal aspiration: a promising new tissue-sampling technique for the diagnosis of suspected malignant biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:798-804.
Noda Y, Fujita N, Kabayashi G, Ito K, Horaguchi J, Hashimoto S, Koshita S, Ishii S, Kanno Y, Ogawa T, Masu K, Tsuchiya T, Oikawa M, Honda H, Sawai T, Uzuki M, Fujishima F: Prospective randomized controlled study comparing cell block method and conventional smear method for bile cytology. Dig Endosc 2013;25:444-452.
Brugge W, DeWitt J, Klapman JB, Ashofaq R, Shidham V, Chhieng D, Kwon R, Baloch Z, Zarka M, Staerkel G: Techniques for cytologic sampling of pancreatic and bile duct lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2014;42:333-337.
Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Ali SZ, Genevay M, Stelow E, Mino-Kenudson M, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Max Schmidt C, Brugge W, Layfield L: Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines. Diagn Cytopathol 2014;42:338-350.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.