Introduction: Brush cytology is commonly used during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the diagnostic evaluation of biliopancreatic strictures. However, since the overall sensitivity of brush cytology is poor, the exclusion of malignancy is difficult. Recognition of factors related to the patient, technique or lesion may help improve the diagnostic yield of brush cytology. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of brush cytology in the assessment of biliopancreatic strictures and identify predictive factors associated with a positive diagnosis of malignancy. Methods: Retrospective study that evaluated all consecutive patients that underwent brush cytology for the investigation of biliopancreatic strictures in a tertiary center, between January 2012 and January 2018. Results: One hundred and sixty-five patients that underwent 182 procedures were included. A diagnosis of malignancy was confirmed in 110 patients (66.7%), of whom 62 had positive brush cytology (sensitivity 53.7%, specificity 98.5%, accuracy 69.8%). On the multivariate analysis, age ≥68 years (OR 4.83, 95% CI 1.04–22.37) and lesions suspicious of metastasis on cross-sectional imaging (OR 8.58, 95% CI 1.70–43.38) were independently associated with a positive result. Subanalysis of the patients presenting with these two factors (n = 26) revealed an increase in the diagnostic yield (sensitivity 80.8%). Conclusion: Age ≥68 years and lesions suspicious of metastasis on cross-sectional imaging are independent factors associated with a positive result. Patient selection taking these factors into account may increase the diagnostic yield of brush cytology.

Keywords:
Brush cytology, Biliopancreatic stricture, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Pancreatic cancer, Bile duct cancer
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
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.