EUS-FNA versus ERCP for tissue diagnosis of suspect malignant biliary strictures: a prospective comparative study

The value of DNA image cytometry combined with brush routine cytology in diagnosing indeterminate biliary strictures: A large sample size retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Brush cytology is widely applied to diagnosis indeterminate biliary stricture but suffer from low sensitivity. Changes in DNA content are a character of malignant cell and can be detected by DNA image cytometry (DNA-ICM). The study aimed to estimate the value of routine cytology (RC), DNA-ICM, and their combination in diagnosing indeterminate biliary strictures.

METHODS

A total of 362 patients who underwent both RC and DNA-ICM tests were analysed. Their results were retrospectively applied to final diagnoses. Diagnostic values were compared among RC, DNA-ICM, and their combination based on the location of strictures.

RESULTS

The DNA-ICM and combination of two methods had higher diagnostic accuracy than RC in all strictures (63.3% vs 42.3%, P < 0.001, 64.36% vs 42.3%, P < 0.001) and in distal strictures (65.36% vs 42.81%, P < 0.001, 66.01% vs 42.81%, P < 0.001). But in proximal strictures, DNA-ICM showed no superior (51.8% vs 42.81%, P = 0.184). Combination of two methods was not fully significant superior to RC in proximal strictures (55.36% vs 39.29%, P = 0.089). After classification of "suspicious for malignancy" as positive for malignancy, the diagnostic accuracy of DNA-ICM was still higher than that of RC in all strictures (63.3% vs 51.9%, P = 0.002) and in distal strictures (65.36% vs 52.29%, P = 0.001). Combination of two methods was no superior to DNA-ICM alone (64.36% vs 63.3%, P = 0.757). The utilization of DNA-ICM was more accurate in distal strictures than in proximal strictures (65.36% vs 51.8%, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

DNA-ICM is an objective and effective addition tool with RC, especially in distal strictures. The combination of DNA-ICM and RC showed no superior to DNA-ICM alone but could improve diagnostic accuracy to RC in proximal strictures although not fully significant.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage for obstructed distal malignant biliary strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For palliation of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), the gold-standard method of biliary drainage is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with the placement of metallic stents. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is an alternative that is typically reserved for cases of ERCP failure. Recently, however, there have been robust randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-guided drainage and ERCP as primary approaches to MBO.

AIM

To compare EUS guidance and ERCP in terms of their effectiveness and safety in palliative biliary drainage for MBO.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis, in which we searched the MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Only RCTs comparing EUS and ERCP for primary drainage of MBO were eligible. All of the studies selected provided data regarding the rates of technical and clinical success, as well as the duration of the procedure, adverse events, and stent patency. We assessed the risk of biases using the Jadad score and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.

RESULTS

The database searches yielded 5920 records, from which we selected 3 RCTs involving a total of 222 patients (112 submitted to EUS and 110 submitted to ERCP). In the EUS and ERCP groups, the rate of technical success was 91.96% and 91.81%, respectively, with a risk difference (RD) of 0.00% (95%CI: -0.07, 0.07; P = 0.97; I 2 = 0%). The clinical success was 84.81% and 85.53% in the EUS and ERCP groups, respectively, with an RD of -0.01% (95%CI: -0.12, 0.10; P = 0.90; I 2 = 0%). The mean difference (MD) for the duration of the procedure was -0.12% (95%CI: -8.20, 7.97; P = 0.98; I 2 = 84%). In the EUS and ERCP groups, there were 14 and 25 adverse events, respectively, with an RD of -0.06% (95%CI: -0.23, 0.12; P = 0.54; I 2 = 77%). The MD for stent patency was 9.32% (95%CI: -4.53, 23.18; P = 0.19; I 2 = 44%). The stent dysfunction rate was significantly lower in the EUS group (MD = -0.22%; 95CI:-0.35, -0.08; P = 0.001; I 2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

EUS represents an interesting alternative to ERCP for MBO drainage, demonstrating lower stent dysfunction rates compared with ERCP. Technical and clinical success, duration, adverse events and patency rates were similar.