Cargando…

False negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience

AIM: In this study we tried to find out the accuracy of biliary tract brushing cytology in our center as the largest referral center in the south of Iran. BACKGROUND: Common bile duct brushing cytology has been introduced as the method of choice for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancies....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Geramizadeh, Bita, Moughali, Maryam, Shahim-Aein, Atefeh, Memari, Soghra, Ghetmiri, Ziba, Taghavi, Alireza, Bagheri Lankarani, Kamran
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6204244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30425807
_version_ 1783366012101459968
author Geramizadeh, Bita
Moughali, Maryam
Shahim-Aein, Atefeh
Memari, Soghra
Ghetmiri, Ziba
Taghavi, Alireza
Bagheri Lankarani, Kamran
author_facet Geramizadeh, Bita
Moughali, Maryam
Shahim-Aein, Atefeh
Memari, Soghra
Ghetmiri, Ziba
Taghavi, Alireza
Bagheri Lankarani, Kamran
author_sort Geramizadeh, Bita
collection PubMed
description AIM: In this study we tried to find out the accuracy of biliary tract brushing cytology in our center as the largest referral center in the south of Iran. BACKGROUND: Common bile duct brushing cytology has been introduced as the method of choice for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancies. However, there have been controversial reports about the sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of this method in the English literature. METHODS: During the study period (2012-2016) there has been 166 cases of common bile duct brushing cytology taken during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). One case has been excluded because of inadequate number of cells in the cytology smear. All the smears have been stained by routine cytologic stains and screened by cytotechnologists and diagnosed by expert cytopathologist. Final diagnosis by biopsy has been considered as the gold standard. RESULTS: According to the final histologic diagnosis as the gold standard, there were 22 false negative and 7 false positive cases. All of the false positive cases have been suspected cases in the background of primary sclerosing cholangitis. The most common final diagnosis of false negative cytologic diagnoses has been intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in which no malignant cell has been identified in the presence of adequate number of normal ductal epithelial cells. CONCLUSION: Common bile duct brushing cytology is the method of choice for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary tract malignancies; however, having high specificity (90%), the sensitivity is low (56%). Cytologic diagnosis of biliary tract malignancies should be made with caution in the patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Also it is important to know that high false negative rate is present in common bile duct brushing cytology especially in the cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma without extension into extrahepatic ducts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6204244
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62042442018-11-13 False negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience Geramizadeh, Bita Moughali, Maryam Shahim-Aein, Atefeh Memari, Soghra Ghetmiri, Ziba Taghavi, Alireza Bagheri Lankarani, Kamran Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench Original Article AIM: In this study we tried to find out the accuracy of biliary tract brushing cytology in our center as the largest referral center in the south of Iran. BACKGROUND: Common bile duct brushing cytology has been introduced as the method of choice for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancies. However, there have been controversial reports about the sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of this method in the English literature. METHODS: During the study period (2012-2016) there has been 166 cases of common bile duct brushing cytology taken during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). One case has been excluded because of inadequate number of cells in the cytology smear. All the smears have been stained by routine cytologic stains and screened by cytotechnologists and diagnosed by expert cytopathologist. Final diagnosis by biopsy has been considered as the gold standard. RESULTS: According to the final histologic diagnosis as the gold standard, there were 22 false negative and 7 false positive cases. All of the false positive cases have been suspected cases in the background of primary sclerosing cholangitis. The most common final diagnosis of false negative cytologic diagnoses has been intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in which no malignant cell has been identified in the presence of adequate number of normal ductal epithelial cells. CONCLUSION: Common bile duct brushing cytology is the method of choice for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary tract malignancies; however, having high specificity (90%), the sensitivity is low (56%). Cytologic diagnosis of biliary tract malignancies should be made with caution in the patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Also it is important to know that high false negative rate is present in common bile duct brushing cytology especially in the cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma without extension into extrahepatic ducts. Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6204244/ /pubmed/30425807 Text en ©2018 RIGLD, Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Geramizadeh, Bita
Moughali, Maryam
Shahim-Aein, Atefeh
Memari, Soghra
Ghetmiri, Ziba
Taghavi, Alireza
Bagheri Lankarani, Kamran
False negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience
title False negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience
title_full False negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience
title_fullStr False negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience
title_full_unstemmed False negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience
title_short False negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience
title_sort false negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6204244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30425807
work_keys_str_mv AT geramizadehbita falsenegativeandfalsepositiveratesincommonbileductbrushingcytologyasinglecenterexperience
AT moughalimaryam falsenegativeandfalsepositiveratesincommonbileductbrushingcytologyasinglecenterexperience
AT shahimaeinatefeh falsenegativeandfalsepositiveratesincommonbileductbrushingcytologyasinglecenterexperience
AT memarisoghra falsenegativeandfalsepositiveratesincommonbileductbrushingcytologyasinglecenterexperience
AT ghetmiriziba falsenegativeandfalsepositiveratesincommonbileductbrushingcytologyasinglecenterexperience
AT taghavialireza falsenegativeandfalsepositiveratesincommonbileductbrushingcytologyasinglecenterexperience
AT bagherilankaranikamran falsenegativeandfalsepositiveratesincommonbileductbrushingcytologyasinglecenterexperience