Diagnosis of Malignant Biliary Stricture: More is Better

Hyun Jik Lee; Kwang Bum Cho

doi:10.5946/ce.2018.035

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 51(2); 2018 > Article

Commentary Diagnosis of Malignant Biliary Stricture: More is Better: Hyun Jik Lee, Kwang Bum Cho; Clinical Endoscopy 2018;51(2):115-117.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2018.035
Published online: March 30, 2018

Department of Internal Medicine, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

Correspondence: Kwang Bum Cho Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keimyung University School of Medicine, 56 Dalseong-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu 41931, Korea Tel: +82-53-250-8096, Fax: +82-53-250-7434, E-mail: chokb@dsmc.or.kr

• Received: January 30, 2018 • Revised: March 9, 2018 • Accepted: March 10, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

6,172 Views
144 Download
6 Web of Science
8 Crossref
7 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

NOTES
REFERENCES

See the article "Usefulness of Endoscopic Transpapillary Tissue Sampling for Malignant Biliary Strictures and Predictive Factors of Diagnostic Accuracy" on page 174.

See “Usefulness of Endoscopic Transpapillary Tissue Sampling for Malignant Biliary Strictures and Predictive Factors of Diagnostic Accuracy” by Hiroki Tanaka, Shimpei Matsusaki, Youichirou Baba, et al., on page. [Related article:] 174-180.

Biliary strictures have various etiologies [1]. Their accurate diagnosis is still a challenge, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach. The most important differentiation is between the benign and malignant etiology. However, there is no consensus regarding an adequate diagnostic approach to malignant biliary strictures (MBS). Moreover, various etiologies of MBS may complicate the choice of diagnostic tools.

In this issue of Clinical Endoscopy, Tanaka et al. report the results of a retrospective analysis of endoscopic transpapillary tissue sampling for MBS and factors predictive of diagnostic accuracy [2]. The authors showed that a combination of forceps biopsy, brush cytology, aspiration cytology, and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage cytology improved the diagnostic accuracy of MBS [2], findings which are similar to those of a previous study [3].

Major malignancies leading to MBS include pancreatic adenocarcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical literature series show that 15%–24% of patients undergoing resection for suspected MBS based on preoperative imaging or endoscopic evaluation have a benign etiology [4-8]. Thus, accurate preoperative tissue diagnosis is necessary to increase the likelihood of complete resection and to avoid perioperative morbidity and mortality. Despite multiple diagnostic methods being available, no single test has sufficient sensitivity to differentiate between benign biliary strictures and MBS. Noninvasive laboratory and radiological tests including transabdominal ultrasound, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are the common initial modalities used for suspected MBS. Transabdominal ultrasound is usually the initial imaging test, but has limited ability for detection of MBS [9]. CT can provide staging information on local spread, nodal and vascular involvement, and metastasis, and has much higher sensitivity for detection of MBS [10]. However, CT still only has a sensitivity of 40%–77% [11-13]. With a sensitivity of 96%–99% and specificity of 85% for differentiation of malignant and benign causes of obstruction [14], MRCP has become the preferred imaging modality in evaluation of MBS.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the most widely used diagnostic and therapeutic modality in MBS. ERCP is useful in identifying the location and extent of MBS and acquiring specimens through brush cytology and intraductal biopsy. Endoscopic brush cytology has a sensitivity of 23%–56% and specificity of 95% in the diagnosis of MBS [15-18]. Various factors can influence the poor yield of brush cytology and include both tumor characteristics and procedure-related factors [19]. Navaneethan et al. reviewed nine studies that included 730 patients to compare the effectiveness of endoscopic brush cytology and intraductal biopsy in the diagnosis of MBS [3]. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of brushings and intraductal biopsies was 45% and 99%, and 48.1% and 99.2%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity can be increased to 59.4% and 100%, respectively, by combining the two methods. They showed that brushings and biopsies alone have limited sensitivity for the diagnosis of MBS, but that sensitivity can be increased by combining the methods [3]. Factors contributing to diagnostic yield include tumor characteristics (location, size, and type of stricture), cytology preparation and interpretation, and ERCP technique (skill and experience of the endoscopist) [20]. However, these factors are not fully understood.

Tanaka et al. demonstrated that a combination of diagnostic methods based on the suspected etiology of MBS using imaging studies can improve diagnostic accuracy [2]. Importantly, the sensitivity of forceps biopsy for biliary lesions (extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 91.4%) was significantly higher than that for extrabiliary lesions (pancreatic cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, metastatic cancer, and postoperative recurrence, 66.3%). This study has several limitations including a retrospective design, small number of pathologic diagnoses confirmed with surgical specimens, and relatively low sensitivity of tissue sampling for extrabiliary lesions. However, the authors showed that sensitivities differ according to tumor characteristics such as presence or absence of direct invasion of the bile duct. These real-world results emphasize the importance of choosing an accurate and appropriate diagnostic method based on the characteristics of strictures using imaging and endoscopic findings. Further prospective and larger scale studies are needed to determine the diagnostic yield and comparative effectiveness of ERCP-based sampling methods and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUSFNA) according to tumor characteristics.

Several studies performed to improve the sensitivity of brush cytology showed that multiple brushings can help to increase the diagnosis rate but that brush length or stricture dilation failed to improve diagnostic yield [19,21]. Moving the sheath and brush across the stricture at least 15 times and sending the sheath rinse along with the brush is a simple modification in technique that can improve the yield of brush cytology for biliary strictures [22]. Triple-tissue sampling including endoluminal FNA, brush cytology, and forceps biopsy or additional endoluminal FNA can increase the sensitivity to 77% [18]. In addition, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and flow cytometry can improve the diagnostic yield of ERCP [23]. Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) for real-time in vivo histological imaging has the potential to be a valuable diagnostic tool for difficult cases [24]. However, FISH and pCLE are not widely used and require further validation for routine clinical practice. Single-operator cholangioscopy for direct visualization of the biliary tract was recently developed, and can provide additional direct images and biopsy sampling to improve the diagnosis of MBS, but still has several limitations [25].

To conclude, standard ERCP, conventional sampling methods, and EUS-FNA alone are insufficient to differentiate MBS from benign strictures, and combining different modalities is necessary to increase the diagnostic sensitivity. Emerging technology such as FISH, pCLE, and cholangioscopy can provide better sensitivity and may improve diagnostic yield. Tissue sampling sensitivity and specificity varies according to the etiology of cancer and characteristics of the stricture. Therefore, the diagnostic approach for MBS needs to be individualized and requires consideration of multiple factors including the cause of malignancy and the endoscopist’s preferred technique.

Conflicts of Interest:The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Bowlus CL, Olson KA, Gershwin ME. Evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;13:28–37.Article PubMed PDF
2. Tanaka H, Matsusaki S, Baba Y, et al. Usefulness of endoscopic transpapillary tissue sampling for malignant biliary strictures and predictive factors of diagnostic accuracy. Clin Endosc 2018;51:174–180.Article PubMed PMC PDF
3. Navaneethan U, Njei B, Lourdusamy V, Konjeti R, Vargo JJ, Parsi MA. Comparative effectiveness of biliary brush cytology and intraductal biopsy for detection of malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:168–176.Article PubMed PMC
4. Gerhards MF, Vos P, van Gulik TM, Rauws EA, Bosma A, Gouma DJ. Incidence of benign lesions in patients resected for suspicious hilar obstruction. Br J Surg 2001;88:48–51.Article PubMed
5. Clayton RA, Clarke DL, Currie EJ, Madhavan KK, Parks RW, Garden OJ. Incidence of benign pathology in patients undergoing hepatic resection for suspected malignancy. Surgeon 2003;1:32–38.Article PubMed
6. Hayat JO, Loew CJ, Asrress KN, McIntyre AS, Gorard DA. Contrasting liver function test patterns in obstructive jaundice due to biliary strictures [corrected] and stones. QJM 2005;98:35–40.Article PubMed PDF
7. Corvera CU, Blumgart LH, Darvishian F, et al. Clinical and pathologic features of proximal biliary strictures masquerading as hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201:862–869.Article PubMed
8. Wakai T, Shirai Y, Sakata J, et al. Clinicopathological features of benign biliary strictures masquerading as biliary malignancy. Am Surg 2012;78:1388–1391.Article PubMed
9. Bowlus CL, Olson KA, Gershwin ME. Evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;14:749.Article PubMed PDF
10. Nesbit GM, Johnson CD, James EM, MacCarty RL, Nagorney DM, Bender CE. Cholangiocarcinoma: diagnosis and evaluation of resectability by CT and sonography as procedures complementary to cholangiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988;151:933–938.Article PubMed
11. Tillich M, Mischinger HJ, Preisegger KH, Rabl H, Szolar DH. Multiphasic helical CT in diagnosis and staging of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:651–658.Article PubMed
12. Rösch T, Meining A, Frühmorgen 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.Article PubMed
13. Heinzow HS, Kammerer S, Rammes C, Wessling J, Domagk D, Meister T. Comparative analysis of ERCP, IDUS, EUS and CT in predicting malignant bile duct strictures. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:10495–10503.Article PubMed PMC
14. Romagnuolo J, Bardou M, Rahme E, Joseph L, Reinhold C, Barkun AN. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected biliary disease. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:547–557.Article PubMed
15. Burnett AS, Calvert TJ, Chokshi RJ. Sensitivity of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography standard cytology: 10-y review of the literature. J Surg Res 2013;184:304–311.Article PubMed
16. 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.Article PubMed
17. Glasbrenner B, Ardan M, Boeck W, Preclik G, Möller P, Adler G. Prospective evaluation of brush cytology of biliary strictures during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 1999;31:712–717.Article PubMed PDF
18. Jailwala J, Fogel EL, Sherman S, et al. Triple-tissue sampling at ERCP in malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51(4 Pt 1):383–390.Article PubMed
19. de Bellis M, Fogel EL, Sherman S, et al. Influence of stricture dilation and repeat brushing on the cancer detection rate of brush cytology in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:176–182.Article PubMed
20. Singh A, Gelrud A, Agarwal B. Biliary strictures: diagnostic considerations and approach. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 2015;3:22–31.Article PubMed PMC PDF
21. Fogel EL, deBellis M, McHenry L, et al. Effectiveness of a new long cytology brush in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:71–77.Article PubMed
22. Amog-Jones GF, Chandra S, Jensen C, Johlin FC. Including the sheath rinse to improve cellular yield in biliary brushing cytology. Clin Endosc 2017;50:614–616.Article PubMed PMC PDF
23. Levy MJ, Baron TH, Clayton AC, et al. Prospective evaluation of advanced molecular markers and imaging techniques in patients with indeterminate bile duct strictures. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:1263–1273.Article PubMed PMC
24. Meining A, Frimberger E, Becker V, et al. Detection of cholangiocarcinoma in vivo using miniprobe-based confocal fluorescence microscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:1057–1060.Article PubMed
25. Navaneethan U, Hasan MK, Lourdusamy V, Njei B, Varadarajulu S, Hawes RH. Single-operator cholangioscopy and targeted biopsies in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:608–614.e2.Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Diagnosis and Medical Management of Biliary Strictures
Andrew Benintende, Erin M. Duggan, Avesh J. Thuluvath
Digestive Disease Interventions.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The additional value of the combined use of EUS and ERCP for the evaluation of unclear biliary strictures
Eszter Bényei, Antonio Molinaro, Per Hedenström, Riadh Sadik
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology.2024; 59(8): 980. CrossRef
Clinical characteristics, risk factors and diagnostic outcomes of patients presented with indeterminate biliary stricture: A multicenter study
Mohammed Tag-Adeen, Mohamed Malak, Muhammad Abdel-Gawad, Ahmed Abu-Elfatth, Ramadan H. Eldamarawy, Ahmed Alzamzamy, Mohamed Elbasiony, Ramy M. Elsharkawy, Fathiya El-Raey, Ahmed N. Basiony, Ahmed Qasem, Zakarya Shady, Ahmed S. Abdelmohsen, Doaa Abdeltawab
Frontiers in Medicine.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Management of Malignant Obstructive Jaundice
Olanrewaju Samuel Balogun, Oluwole Ayoola Atoyebi
Journal of West African College of Surgeons.2022; 12(3): 111. CrossRef
Title: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 in the differential diagnosis of biliary strictures
Lisset Barroso Marquez, Lissette Chao González, Marcia Samada Suárez, Harlim Rodríguez Rodríguez, Yunia Tusen Toledo, Kenia Valenzuela Aguilera, Teresita Pérez González
Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
MRCP Combined With CT Promotes the Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Distal Bile Duct Strictures
Guang-xian Wang, Xiao-dong Ge, Dong Zhang, Hai-ling Chen, Qi-chuan Zhang, Li Wen
Frontiers in Oncology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Biliary Strictures and Cholangiocarcinoma – Untangling a Diagnostic Conundrum
Alexander Ney, Andres Garcia-Sampedro, George Goodchild, Pilar Acedo, Giuseppe Fusai, Stephen P. Pereira
Frontiers in Oncology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Factors Associated with Malignant Biliary Strictures in Patients with Atypical or Suspicious Cells on Brush Cytology
Ji Young Park, Tae Joo Jeon
Clinical Endoscopy.2019; 52(2): 168. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format: