What is the appropriate method of pathological specimen collection for cholangiocarcinoma detection in primary sclerosing cholangitis?

Background In primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), it is important to understand the cholangiographic findings suggestive of malignancy, but it is difficult to determine whether cholangiocarcinoma is present due to modifications caused by inflammation. This study aimed to clarify the appropriate me...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of gastroenterology 2024-07, Vol.59 (7), p.621-628
Hauptverfasser: Kano, Yuichi, Ishikawa, Takuya, Yamao, Kentaro, Mizutani, Yasuyuki, Iida, Tadashi, Uetsuki, Kota, Yamamura, Takeshi, Furukawa, Kazuhiro, Nakamura, Masanao, Kawashima, Hiroki
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background In primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), it is important to understand the cholangiographic findings suggestive of malignancy, but it is difficult to determine whether cholangiocarcinoma is present due to modifications caused by inflammation. This study aimed to clarify the appropriate method of pathological specimen collection during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for surveillance of PSC. Methods A retrospective observational study was performed on 59 patients with PSC. The endpoints were diagnostic performance for benign or malignant on bile cytology and transpapillary bile duct biopsy, cholangiographic findings of biopsied bile ducts, diameters of the strictures and upstream bile ducts, and their differences. Results The sensitivity (77.8% vs. 14.3%, P  = 0.04), specificity (97.8% vs. 83.0%, P  = 0.04), and accuracy (94.5% vs. 74.1%, P  = 0.007) were all significantly greater for bile duct biopsy than for bile cytology. All patients with cholangiocarcinoma with bile duct stricture presented with dominant stricture (DS). The diameter of the upstream bile ducts (7.1 (4.2–7.2) mm vs. 2.1 (1.2–4.1) mm, P  
ISSN:0944-1174
1435-5922
1435-5922
DOI:10.1007/s00535-024-02105-y