Multicenter randomized trial comparing diagnostic sensitivity and cellular abundance with aggressive versus standard biliary brushing for bile duct stenosis without mass syndrome

Abstract

Background The diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with a biliary stricture without mass syndrome can be obtained by biliary brushing with a sensitivity of ~50 %. We performed a multicenter randomized crossover trial comparing the aggressive Infinity brush with the standard RX Cytology Brush. The aims were to compare sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis and cellularity obtained.

Methods Biliary brushing was performed consecutively with each brush, in a randomized order. Cytological material was studied with blinding to the brush type used and order. The primary end point was sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis; the secondary end point was the abundance of cellularity obtained with each brush, with cellularity quantified in order to determine if one brush strongly outperformed the other.

Results 51 patients were included. Final diagnoses were cholangiocarcinoma (n = 43; 84 %), benign (n = 7; 14 %), and indeterminate (n = 1; 2 %). Sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma was 79 % (34 /43) for the Infinity brush versus 67 % (29/43) for the RX Cytology Brush (P = 0.10). Cellularity was rich in 31/51 cases (61 %) with the Infinity brush and in 10/51 cases (20 %) with the RX Cytology Brush (P < 0.001). In terms of quantification of cellularity, the Infinity brush strongly outperformed the RX Cytology Brush in 28/51 cases (55 %), while the RX Cytology Brush strongly outperformed the Infinity brush in 4/51 cases (8 %; P < 0.001).

Conclusions This randomized crossover trial showed that the Infinity brush is not significantly more effective than the RX Cytology Brush for biliary stenosis without mass syndrome in terms of sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis, but does offer a significantly higher abundance of cellularity.

Publication History

Received: 02 November 2022

Accepted after revision: 23 February 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
27 February 2023

Article published online:
03 May 2023

• References

• 1 Nguyen Canh H, Harada K. Adult bile duct strictures: differentiating benign biliary stenosis from cholangiocarcinoma. Med Mol Morphol 2016; 49: 189-202
• 2 Khan SA, Davidson BR, Goldin RD. et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: an update. Gut 2012; 61: 1657-1669
• 3 Benavides M, Antón A, Gallego J. et al. Biliary tract cancers: SEOM clinical guidelines. Clin Transl Oncol 2015; 17: 982-987
• 4 Cai Y, Cheng N, Ye H. et al. The current management of cholangiocarcinoma: A comparison of current guidelines. Biosci Trends 2016; 10: 92-102
• 5 Fong ZV, Brownlee SA, Qadan M. et al. The clinical management of cholangiocarcinoma in the United States and Europe: a comprehensive and evidence-based comparison of guidelines. Ann Surg Oncol 2021; 28: 2660-2674
• 6 Liu X, Yang Z, Tan H. et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant hilar bile duct stenosis. J Surg Res 2016; 203: 275-282
• 7 Otsuka S, Ebata T, Yokoyama Y. et al. Benign hilar bile duct strictures resected as perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg 2019; 106: 1504-1511
• 8 Gerritsen A, Molenaar IQ, Bollen TL. et al. Preoperative characteristics of patients with presumed pancreatic cancer but ultimately benign disease: a multicenter series of 344 pancreatoduodenectomies. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 3999-4006
• 9 De Moura DTH, Moura EGH, Bernardo WM. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasound for tissue diagnosis of malignant biliary stricture: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound 2018; 7: 10-19
• 10 Karsenti D, Palazzo L, Perrot B. et al. 22G Acquire vs. 20G Procore needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses: a randomized study comparing histologic sample quantity and diagnostic accuracy. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 747-753
• 11 Tanisaka Y, Mizuide M, Fujita A. et al. Diagnostic process using endoscopy for biliary strictures: a narrative review. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 1048
• 12 Navaneethan U, Hasan MK, Lourdusamy V. et al. Single-operator cholangioscopy and targeted biopsies in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 608-614.e2
• 13 Sun X, Zhou Z, Tian J. et al. Is single-operator peroral cholangioscopy a useful tool for the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesion? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 79-87
• 14 de Vries AB, van der Heide F, Ter Steege RWF. et al. Limited diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of single-operator peroral cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 107-114
• 15 Barrioz T, Wangermez M, Levillain P. et al. The Infinity brush improves the results of brush cytology of malignant biliary strictures. Endoscopy 2013; 45: A7407
• 16 Thosani NC, Banerjee S, Chen AM. et al. Su1698. Prospective, randomized, single-blinded controlled trial of Infinity cytology brush vs standard cytology brush for diagnosis of biliary stricture: an interim analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: AB371
• 17 Kylänpää L, Boyd S, Ristimäki A. et al. A prospective randomised study of dense Infinity cytological brush versus regularly used brush in pancreaticobiliary malignancy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016; 51: 590-593
• 18 Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L. et al. ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 127-149
• 19 Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Ali SZ. et al. Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines. Cytojournal 2014; 11: 3
• 20 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383-393
• 21 Stock C, Hielscher T, Stock MC. Package dtcompair: comparison of binary diagnostic tests in a paired study design. R package version 1.0.3. 2013 Available at (Accessed 21.03.2023): cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DTComPair/index.html
• 22 Razumilava N, Gores GJ. Cholangiocarcinoma. Lancet 2014; 383: 2168-2179
• 23 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
• 24 Ornellas LC, Santos Gda C, Nakao FS. et al. Comparison between endoscopic brush cytology performed before and after biliary stricture dilation for cancer detection. Arq Gastroenterol 2006; 43: 20-23
• 25 Pörner D, Kaczmarek DJ, Heling D. et al. Transpapillary tissue sampling of biliary strictures: balloon dilatation prior to forceps biopsy improves sensitivity and accuracy. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 17423
• 26 Fior-Gozlan M, Giovannini D, Rabeyrin M. et al. Monocentric study of bile aspiration associated with biliary brushing performed during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in 239 patients with symptomatic biliary stricture. Cancer Cytopathol 2016; 124: 330-339
• 27 Roth GS, Bichard P, Fior-Gozlan M. et al. Performance of bile aspiration plus brushing to diagnose malignant biliary strictures during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E997-E1003
• 28 Layfield LJ, Esebua M, Ang J. et al. Cell block cellularity: A comparison of two fixatives and their impact on cellularity. Diagn Cytopathol 2019; 47: 417-420
• 29 Kaura K, Sawas T, Bazerbachi F. et al. Cholangioscopy biopsies improve detection of cholangiocarcinoma when combined with cytology and FISH, but not in patients with PSC. Dig Dis Sci 2020; 65: 1471-1478
• 30 Gerges C, Beyna T, Tang RSY. et al. Digital single-operator peroral cholangioscopy-guided biopsy sampling versus ERCP-guided brushing for indeterminate biliary strictures: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 1105-1113
• 31 Sethi A, Chen YK, Austin GL. et al. ERCP with cholangiopancreatoscopy may be associated with higher rates of complications than ERCP alone: a single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 251-256