Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic yield of biliary brush cytology and the factors affecting positive results in patients with biliary strictures. Patients and Methods: The medical records of all patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary brush cytology at our institution from November 2004 to December 2013 were reviewed in this retrospective study. The yield of positive brush cytology and the factors affecting positive yield, such as stricture location, age, gender and preprocedure CA 19.9 level were assessed. The final histopathology, diagnosis obtained by other methods, such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology, CT scan, Tru-Cut biopsy and/or clinical/radiological follow-up were used to identify true- and false-positive/negative results. The brush cytology results were divided into 4 main categories: malignant, benign, atypical cells and inadequate. Results: A total of 1,168 patients underwent ERCP during this 9-year period. Out of these, 142 patients had ERCP and biliary brushings for diagnosis. The mean age of the patients at presentation was 58.7 years (range 23-84 years; 64.8% males). The indication for referral was obstructive jaundice in all patients. Of the 142 patients, 77 (54.2%) had a distal common bile duct (CBD) stricture and 65 (45.8%) had a proximal /complex hilar stricture. The strictures were classified as proximal or distal, based on their relationship with the cystic duct; those below the cystic duct insertion were classified as distal and those above it were considered proximal. The diagnostic yield of brush cytology was 58.5%. The diagnostic yield was higher for proximal than for distal CBD strictures (67 vs. 50%; p = 0.047). It was also higher for females (58 vs. 57.6%; p = 0.94), patients >50 years (60 vs. 50%; p = 0.29) and those with a CA 19.9 level >300 IU/ml (59.4 vs. 55.5%; p = 0.65) but did not reach statistical significance for any of these parameters. Complete follow-up data were available for 96 patients and 46 patients were lost to follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 65.3, 100, 100 and 27%, respectively. When patients with atypia were included in the group with positive results, the diagnostic yield increased to 65.5% with a diagnostic sensitivity of 68.6%. There were 27 false-negative diagnoses, 10 patients were true-negative and no patients had a false-positive diagnosis. Conclusion: Biliary brush cytology is a safe and simple initial diagnostic procedure in patients with biliary strictures and can be performed at the time of therapeutic ERCP. If performed correctly and then interpreted by a dedicated cytopathologist, it has a good diagnostic yield and sensitivity. We feel that the low rates of success with this technique reported in some earlier studies have led to a feeling that this is not a particularly useful technique. We recommend that this topic should be revisited, and that the technique should be used more often.

Keywords:
Biliary brush cytology, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Obstructive jaundice, Diagnostic yield
1.
Mahmoudi N, Enns R, Amar J, Ali JA, Lam E, Telford J: Biliary brush cytology: factors associated with positive yields on biliary brush cytology. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:569-573.
2.
Conrad R, Castelino-Prabhu S, Cobb C, Raza A: Cytopathology of the pancreatobiliary tract - the agony, and sometimes, the ease of it. J Gastrointest Oncol 2013;4:210-219.
3.
De Bellis M, Sherman S, Fogel EL, Cramer H, Chappo J, McHenry L Jr, et al: Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:552-561.
4.
Mansfield JC, Griffin SM, Wadehra V, Matthewson K: A prospective evaluation of cytology from biliary strictures. Gut 1997;40:671-677.
5.
Lundstedt C, Stridbeck H, Andersson R, Tranberg KG, Andrén-Sandberg A: Tumor seeding occurring after fine-needle biopsy of abdominal malignancies. Acta Radiol 1991;32:518-520.
6.
Temiño López-Jurado R, Acosta GC, Pintos MA, Caravaca GR, Lledó Navarro JL, Rodríguez CF: Diagnostic yield of brush cytology for biliary stenosis during ERCP. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2009;101:385-394.
7.
Kurzawinski T, Deery A, Davidson BR: Diagnostic value of cytology for biliary stricture. Br J Surg 1993;80:414-421.
8.
Foutch PG: Diagnosis of cancer by cytological methods performed during ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:249-252.
9.
Sachdev A, Duseja A, Bhalla A, Handa U, Sandhu BS, Gupta V, Kochhar S: Efficacy of endoscopic wire guided biliary brushing in the evaluation of biliary strictures. Trop Gastroenterol 2003;24:215-217.
10.
Thuluvath PJ, Rai R, Venbrux AC, Yeo CJ: Cholangio-carcinoma: a review. Gastroenterologist 1997;5:306-315.
11.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al: Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:225-249.
12.
Jarnagin WR, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, et al: Staging, resectability, and outcome in 225 patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2001;234:507-519.
13.
Burnett AS, Calvert TJ, Chokshi RJ: Sensitivity of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography standard cytology: 10-years review of the literature. J Surg Res 2013;184:304-311.
14.
Stewart C, Mills P, Carter R, O'Donohue J, Fullarton G, Imrie C, Murray W: Brush cytology in the assessment of pancreatico-biliary strictures; a review of 406 cases. J Clin Pathol 2001;54:449-455.
15.
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: the experience at 2 university hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:387-392.
16.
Mohammad Alizadeh AH, Mousavi M, Salehi B, Molaei M, Khodadoostan M, Afzali ES: Biliary brush cytology in the assessment of biliary strictures at a tertiary center in Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2011;12:2793-2796.
17.
Elhosseiny A, Bakkar R, Zenali M: Cytology of the biliary tree. Ann Clin Pathol 2014;2:1015.
18.
Mohandas KM, Swaroop VS, Gullar SU, Dave UR, Jagannath P, DeSouza LJ: Diagnosis of malignant obstructive jaundice by bile cytology: results improved by dilating the bile duct strictures. Gastrointest Endosc1994;40:150-154.
19.
Ryan ME, Baldauf MC: Comparison of flow cytometry for DNA content and brush cytology for detection of malignancy in pancreaticobiliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:133-113.
20.
Baron TH, Harewood GC, Rumalla A, Pochron NL, Stadheim LM, Gores GJ, et al: A prospective comparison of digital image analysis and routine cytology for the identification of malignancy in biliary tract strictures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;2:214-219.
21.
Kipp BR, Stadheim LM, Halling SA, Pochron NL, Harmsen S, Nagorney DM, et al: 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.
22.
Witt BL, Kristen Hilden RN, Scaife C, Chadwick B, Layfield L, Cory Johnston W: Identification of factors predictive of malignancy in patients with atypical biliary brushing results obtained via ERCP. Diagn Cytopathol 2013;41:682-688.
23.
Stoos-Veić T, Bilić B, Kaić G, Ostović KT, Babić Z, Kujundzić M: Biliary brush cytology for the diagnosis of malignancy: a single center experience. Coll Antropol 2010;34:139-143.
24.
Redelman M, Cramer HM, Wu HH: Pancreatic fine-needle aspiration cytology in patients <35 years of age: a retrospective review of 174 cases spanning a 17-year period. Diagn Cytopathol 2014;42:297-301.
25.
Savides TJ, Donohue M, Hunt G, Al-Haddad M, Aslanian H, Ben-Menachem T, et al: EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:277-282.
26.
Oppong K, Raine D, Nayar M, Wadehra V, Ramakrishnan S, Charnley RM: EUS-FNA versus biliary brushings and assessment of simultaneous performance in jaundiced patients with suspected malignant obstruction. JOP J Pancreas 2010;11:560-567.
27.
Ross WA, Wasan SM, Evans DB, Wolff RA, Trapani LV, Staerkel GA, et al: Combined EUS with FNA and ERCP for the evaluation of patients with obstructive jaundice from presumed pancreatic malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:461-466.
28.
Ohtsuka T, Tamura K, Ideno N, Aso T, Nagayoshi Y, Kono H, et al: The role of ERCP in the era of EUS-FNA for preoperative cytological confirmation of resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Surg Today 2014;44:1887-1992.
29.
Qureshi A, Hassan U, Loya A, Akhter N, Najam-ud-Din, Yusuf A: Diagnostic utility of endoscopic ultrasound guided aspiration cytology in evaluation of pancreatic masses. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2013;23:484-486.
30.
Kalaitzakis E, Sturgess R, Kaltsidis H, Oppong K, Lekharaju V, Bergenzaun P, et al: Diagnostic utility of single-user peroral cholangioscopy in sclerosing cholangitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014;10:1-8.
31.
Fukuda Y, Tsuyuguchi T, Sakai Y, Tsuchiya S, Sisyo H: Diagnostic utility of peroral cholangioscopy for various bile duct lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:374-382.
32.
Ali JM, See TC, Wiseman O, Griffiths WJ, Jah A: Salvage of liver transplant with hepatolithiasis by percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic hepatolithotomy. Transpl Int 2014;27:e126-128.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.