Objective: Although cytology testing is considered a valuable method to diagnose tumors that are difficult to access such as hepato-biliary-pancreatic (HBP) malignancies, its diagnostic accuracy remains unclear. We therefore aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of cytology testing for HBP tumors. Study Design: We performed a retrospective study of all cytology samples that were used to confirm radiologically detected HBP tumors between 2002 and 2016. The cytology techniques used in our center included fine needle aspiration (FNA), brush cytology, and aspiration of bile. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios were calculated in comparison to histological confirmation. Results: From a total of 133 medical records, we calculated an overall sensitivity of 76%, specificity of 74%, a negative likelihood ratio of 0.30, and a positive likelihood ratio of 2.9. Cytology was more accurate in diagnosing lesions of the liver (sensitivity 79%, specificity 57%) and biliary tree (sensitivity 100%, specificity 50%) compared to pancreatic (sensitivity 60%, specificity 83%) and gallbladder lesions (sensitivity 50%, specificity 85%). Cytology was more accurate in detecting primary cancers (sensitivity 77%, specificity 73%) when compared to metastatic cancers (sensitivity 73%, specificity 100%). FNA was the most frequently used cytological technique to diagnose HBP lesions (sensitivity 78.8%). Conclusion: Cytological testing is efficient in diagnosing HBP cancers, especially for hepatobiliary tumors. Given its relative simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and paucity of alternative diagnostic methods, cytology should still be considered as a first-line tool for diagnosing HBP malignancies.

Keywords:
Hepatobiliary cancer, Biliary cytology, Pancreatic cytology histopathology, Diagnostic accuracy
1.
World Health Organization Fact Sheet: Cancer. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer.
2.
Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Bishop K, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA (eds): SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2014. Bethesda, National Cancer Institute. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2014/ (based on November 2016 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER website, April 2017).
3.
Almadouj A, Alshahrani Z, Alrawaji A, et al: Cancer Incidence Report, Saudi Health Council. 2013.
4.
Barr Fritcher EG, Caudill JL, Blue JE, Djuric K, Feipel L, Maritim BK, et al: Identification of malignant cytologic criteria in pancreatobiliary brushings with corresponding positive fluorescence in situ hybridization results. Am J Clin Pathol 2011; 136: 442–449.
5.
Kuzu U, Ödemiş B, Turhan N, Parlak E, Dişibeyaz S, Suna N, et al: The diagnostic value of brush cytology alone and in combination with tumor markers in pancreaticobiliary strictures. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2015; 2015: 1–8.
6.
Mahmoudi N, Enns R, Amar J, AlAli J, Lam E, Telford J: Biliary brush cytology: factors associated with positive yields on biliary brush cytology. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 569–573.
7.
Štoos-Veić T, Bilić B, Kaić G, Trutin Ostović K, Babić Ž, Kujundžić M: Biliary brush cytology for the diagnosis of malignancy: a single center experience. Coll Antropol 2010; 34: 139–143.
8.
Brugge WDJ, Klapman J, Ashfaq R, Shidham V, Chhieng D, et al: Techniques for cytologic sampling of pancreatic and bile duct lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2014; 42: 333–337.
9.
Kurzawinski TR, Deery A, Dooley JS, et al: A prospective study of biliary cytology in 100 patients with bile duct strictures. Hepatology 1993; 18: 1399–1403.
10.
Fogel E, Sherman S: How to improve the accuracy of diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 758–760.
11.
Weilert F, Bhat Y, Binmoeller K, Kane S, Jaffee I, Shaw R, et al: EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP-based tissue sampling in suspected malignant biliary obstruction: results of a prospective, single-blind, comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 97–104.
12.
Westenend P, Sever A, Beekman-de Volder H, Liem S: A comparison of aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in the evaluation of breast lesions. Cancer 2001; 93: 146–150.
13.
Stewart C, Mills P, Carter R, O’Donohue J, Fullarton G, Imrie C, et al: Brush cytology in the assessment of pancreatico-biliary strictures: a review of 406 cases. J Clin Pathol 2001; 54: 449–455.
14.
Harewood G, Baron TH, Stadheim L, Kipp B, Sebo T, Salomao D: Prospective, blinded assessment of factors influencing accuracy of biliary cytology interpretation. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59:P99.
15.
Temiño López-Jurado R, Cacho Acosta G, Argüelles Pintos M, Rodríguez Caravaca G, Lledó Navarro JL, Fernández Rodríguez C: Diagnostic yield of brush cytology for biliary stenosis during ERCP. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2009; 101: 385–394.
16.
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.
17.
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 1995; 42: 565–572.
18.
Lee JG, Leung JW, Baillie J, Layfield LJ, Cotton PB: Benign, dysplastic, ormalignant – making sense of endoscopic bile duct brush cytology: results in 149 consecutive patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1995; 90: 722–726.
19.
Parsi MA, Deepinder F, Lopez R, Stevens T, Dodig M, Zuccaro G: Factors affecting the yield of brush cytology for the diagnosis of pancreatic and biliary cancers. Pancreas 2011; 40: 52–54.
20.
Kocjan G, Smith AN: Bile duct brushings cytology: potential pitfalls in diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 1997; 16: 358–363.
21.
Soyuer I, Tasdemir A, Gursoy S, Yurci A, Mavili E, Ozcan N: Endoscopic biliary tract brush cytology in 54 cases. Turk J Med Sci 2010; 40: 807–812.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
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.