Advertisement

Bile Duct Brush Cytology

  • Abha GoyalEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Essentials in Cytopathology book series (EICP, volume 28)

Abstract

The determination of biliary strictures as benign or malignant is challenging in clinical practice. It requires a multidisciplinary approach comprising of clinical, imaging, and pathologic findings. Most of the biliary strictures are malignant, the most common malignancies being pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, cholangiocarcinomas, and peri-ampullary carcinomas. The diagnosis of malignancy aids in early treatment if the tumor is resectable. If unresectable, it helps in planning palliative care. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided brush cytology is considered the preferred method for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures. Histologic sampling in this area can be problematic due to high rate of complications and associated artifacts from tissue crushing and distortion. The sensitivity of brush cytology for diagnosing malignancy ranges from 30% to 89% as per various studies. However, its specificity for malignancy approaches 100%. This chapter discusses the nuances of cytologic features of bile duct brushings (BDB), the diagnostic challenges, and the ancillary studies that can assist in their evaluation.

Keywords

Bile duct brushing Bile duct stricture Cholangiocarcinoma Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) Reactive changes Bile duct stent 

References

  1. 1.
    Singh A, Gelrud A, Agarwal B. Biliary strictures: diagnostic considerations and approach. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2015;3:22–31.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/gou072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Costamagna G, Boškoski I. Current treatment of benign biliary strictures. Ann Gastroenterol. 2013;26:37–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cassani L, Lee JH. Management of malignant distal biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Interv. 2015;4:15–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gii.2015.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Cancer Institute: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/pancreas.html (2018). Accessed 24 April 2018.
  5. 5.
    Rösch T, Hofrichter K, Frimberger E, Meining A, Born P, Weigert N, et al. ERCP or EUS for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures? A prospective comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:390–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moff SL, Clark DP, Maitra A, Pandey A, Thuluvath PJ. Utility of bile duct brushings for the early detection of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;40:336–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;136:442–9.  https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPDULIOEOTUZ5H.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Volmar KE, Vollmer RT, Routbort MJ, Creager AJ. Pancreatic and bile duct brushing cytology in 1000 cases: review of findings and comparison of preparation methods. Cancer. 2006;108:231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stewart CJ, Mills PR, Carter R, O’Donohue J, Fullarton G, Imrie CW, et al. Brush cytology in the assessment of pancreatico-biliary strictures: a review of 406 cases. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54:449–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kocjan G, Smith AN. Bile duct brushings cytology: potential pitfalls in diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16:358–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burnett AS, Calvert TJ, Chokshi RJ. Sensitivity of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography standard cytology: 10-y review of the literature. J Surg Res. 2013;184:304–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.06.028.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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;81:168–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pugliese V, Conio M, Nicolò G, Saccomanno S, Gatteschi B. Endoscopic retrograde forceps biopsy and brush cytology of biliary strictures: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:520526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kawashima H, Itoh A, Ohno E, Goto H, Hirooka Y. Transpapillary biliary forceps biopsy to distinguish benign biliary stricture from malignancy: how many tissue samples should be obtained? Dig Endosc. 2012;24(Suppl 1):22–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1443–1661.2012.01253.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ponchon T, Gagnon P, Berger F, Labadie M, Liaras A, Chavaillon A, 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;42:565–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kubota Y, Takaoka M, Tani K, Ogura M, Kin H, Fujimura K, et al. Endoscopic transpapillary biopsy for diagnosis of patients with pancreaticobiliary ductal strictures. Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;88:1700–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DeWitt J, Misra VL, Leblanc JK, McHenry L, Sherman S. EUS-guided FNA of proximal biliary strictures after negative ERCP brush cytology results. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:325–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ohshima Y, Yasuda I, Kawakami H, Kuwatani M, Mukai T, Iwashita T, et al. EUS-FNA for suspected malignant biliary strictures after negative endoscopic transpapillary brush cytology and forceps biopsy. J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:921–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535–011–0404-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brugge W, Dewitt J, Klapman JB, Ashfaq R, Shidham V, Chhieng D, et al. Techniques for cytologic sampling of pancreatic and bile duct lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42:333–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.23096.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siddiqui MT, Gokaslan ST, Saboorian MH, Carrick K, Ashfaq R. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings. Cancer. 2003;99:205–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heath JE, Goicochea LB, Staats PN. Biliary stent related alterations can be distinguished from adenocarcinoma on bile duct brushings using a limited number of cytologic features. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4:282–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goyal A, Sharaiha RZ, Alperstein SA, Siddiqui MT. Cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma on bile duct brushings in the presence of stent associated changes: A retrospective analysis. Diagn Cytopathol. 2018;46:826–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.24052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Layfield LJ, Wax TD, Lee JG, Cotton PB. Accuracy and morphologic aspects of pancreatic and biliary duct brushings. Acta Cytol. 1995;39:11–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Ali SZ, Genevay M, Stelow E, Mino-Kenudson M, et al. Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42(4):338–50.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.23092.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohen MB, Wittchow RJ, Johlin FC, Bottles K, Raab SS. Brush cytology of the extrahepatic biliary tract: comparison of cytologic features of adenocarcinoma and benign biliary strictures. Mod Pathol. 1995;8:498–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Renshaw AA, Madge R, Jiroutek M, Granter SR. Bile duct brushing cytology: statistical analysis of proposed diagnostic criteria. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998;110:635–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salomao M, Gonda TA, Margolskee E, Eguia V, Remotti H, Poneros JM, et al. Strategies for improving diagnostic accuracy of biliary strictures. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015;123:244–52.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21509.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Avadhani V, Hacihasanoglu E, Memis B, Pehlivanoglu B, Hanley KZ, Krishnamurti U, et al. Cytologic predictors of malignancy in bile duct brushings: a multi-reviewer analysis of 60 cases. Mod Pathol. 2017;30:1273–86.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2017.51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee SS, Kim MH, Lee SK, Jang SJ, Song MH, Kim KP, et al. Clinicopathologic review of 58 patients with biliary papillomatosis. Cancer. 2004;100:783–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ohtsuka M, Kimura F, Shimizu H, Yoshidome H, Kato A, Yoshitomi H, et al. Similarities and differences between intraductal papillary tumors of the bile duct with and without macroscopically visible mucin secretion. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:512–21.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182103f36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wan XS, Xu YY, Qian JY, Yang XB, Wang AQ, He L, et al. Intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:8595–604.  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i46.8595.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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;124:387–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Layfield LJ, Cramer H. Primary sclerosing cholangitis as a cause of false positive bile duct brushing cytology: report of two cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 2005;32:119–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fritcher EG, Kipp BR, Halling KC, Oberg TN, Bryant SC, Tarrell RF, et al. A multivariable model using advanced cytologic methods for the evaluation of indeterminate pancreatobiliary strictures. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:2180–6.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2009.02.040.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Barr Fritcher EG, Voss JS, Brankley SM, Campion MB, Jenkins SM, Keeney ME, et al. An optimized set of fluorescence in situ hybridization probes for detection of pancreatobiliary tract Cancer in cytology brush samples. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:1813–1824.e1.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.08.046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kanzawa M, Sanuki T, Onodera M, Fujikura K, Itoh T, Zen Y. Double immunostaining for maspin and p53 on cell blocks increases the diagnostic value of biliary brushing cytology. Pathol Int. 2017;67:91–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pin.12505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tokumitsu T, Sato Y, Yamashita A, Moriguchi-Goto S, Kondo K, Nanashima A, et al. Immunocytochemistry for Claudin-18 and Maspin in biliary brushing cytology increases the accuracy of diagnosing pancreatobiliary malignancies. Cytopathology. 2017;28:116–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cyt.12368.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dudley JC, Zheng Z, McDonald T, Le LP, Dias-Santagata D, Borger D, et al. Next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization have comparable performance characteristics in the analysis of pancreaticobiliary brushings for malignancy. J Mol Diagn. 2016;18:124–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2015.08.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineWeill-Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian HosptialNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations