ERCP-Based Cell Block: A Potential One-Stop Shop in the Management of Malignant Biliary Obstruction.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Rareș Crăciun, Andrada Seicean, Cristina Pojoga, Roxana Popa, Bobe Petrushev, Marcel Tanțău, Cristian Tefas
{"title":"ERCP-Based Cell Block: A Potential One-Stop Shop in the Management of Malignant Biliary Obstruction.","authors":"Rareș Crăciun, Andrada Seicean, Cristina Pojoga, Roxana Popa, Bobe Petrushev, Marcel Tanțău, Cristian Tefas","doi":"10.1111/jgh.70014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) typically results from cancers like pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and gallbladder carcinoma, and it often presents at an advanced stage. Diagnostic tools such as ERCP and EUS-FNA are commonly used for tissue sampling, but each has limitations regarding accuracy and cost. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of cell block (CB) cytology collected during ERCP-guided stenting with the traditional EUS-FNA plus ERCP-guided stenting approach in patients with unresectable MBO.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational study included 102 patients with advanced unresectable MBO who underwent both EUS-FNA and ERCP-guided stenting with CB sampling. The study evaluated the diagnostic yield of three strategies: CB alone, EUS-FNA alone, and a combination of both methods. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using publicly available reimbursement rates from the public healthcare system to assess potential procedural cost savings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The diagnostic yield for EUS-FNA (82.35%) was higher than for CB (72.54%), though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.23). Combining both methods increased the diagnostic yield to 93.13% (p = 0.04). CB performed better in cases with direct biliary invasion (88.23% vs. 79.41% for EUS-FNA, p = 0.01). A cost reduction of 319.17 € per case was achieved using a CB-only strategy in appropriate cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EUS-FNA remains superior for diagnosing extrinsic MBO, but ERCP-based CB offers a cost-effective and reliable diagnostic option, particularly for biliary tract cancers. The combination of both approaches enhances diagnostic accuracy, supporting their concurrent use in specific clinical scenarios, while optimizing costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":15877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.70014","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim: Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) typically results from cancers like pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and gallbladder carcinoma, and it often presents at an advanced stage. Diagnostic tools such as ERCP and EUS-FNA are commonly used for tissue sampling, but each has limitations regarding accuracy and cost. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of cell block (CB) cytology collected during ERCP-guided stenting with the traditional EUS-FNA plus ERCP-guided stenting approach in patients with unresectable MBO.

Methods: This prospective observational study included 102 patients with advanced unresectable MBO who underwent both EUS-FNA and ERCP-guided stenting with CB sampling. The study evaluated the diagnostic yield of three strategies: CB alone, EUS-FNA alone, and a combination of both methods. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using publicly available reimbursement rates from the public healthcare system to assess potential procedural cost savings.

Results: The diagnostic yield for EUS-FNA (82.35%) was higher than for CB (72.54%), though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.23). Combining both methods increased the diagnostic yield to 93.13% (p = 0.04). CB performed better in cases with direct biliary invasion (88.23% vs. 79.41% for EUS-FNA, p = 0.01). A cost reduction of 319.17 € per case was achieved using a CB-only strategy in appropriate cases.

Conclusions: EUS-FNA remains superior for diagnosing extrinsic MBO, but ERCP-based CB offers a cost-effective and reliable diagnostic option, particularly for biliary tract cancers. The combination of both approaches enhances diagnostic accuracy, supporting their concurrent use in specific clinical scenarios, while optimizing costs.

基于ercp的细胞阻滞:恶性胆道梗阻治疗的潜在一站式服务。
背景和目的:恶性胆道梗阻(MBO)通常由胰腺腺癌、胆管癌和胆囊癌等肿瘤引起,通常出现在晚期。ERCP和EUS-FNA等诊断工具通常用于组织采样,但每种工具在准确性和成本方面都有局限性。本研究旨在比较在ercp引导下支架植入期间收集的细胞块(CB)细胞学与传统的EUS-FNA + ercp引导下支架植入方法对不可切除的MBO患者的诊断准确性和成本效益。方法:这项前瞻性观察研究纳入了102例晚期不可切除的MBO患者,他们同时接受了EUS-FNA和ercp引导下的CB取样支架置入。该研究评估了三种策略的诊断率:CB单独,EUS-FNA单独以及两种方法的组合。使用公共医疗保健系统的公开可获得的报销率进行成本效益分析,以评估潜在的程序成本节约。结果:EUS-FNA的诊断率(82.35%)高于CB(72.54%),但差异无统计学意义(p = 0.23)。两种方法联合使用可使诊断率提高到93.13% (p = 0.04)。CB在直接侵犯胆道的病例中表现更好(88.23% vs. 79.41%, p = 0.01)。在适当的情况下,采用仅限cb策略,每箱成本降低了319.17欧元。结论:EUS-FNA在诊断外源性MBO方面仍然优越,但基于ercp的CB提供了一种经济可靠的诊断选择,特别是对于胆道癌症。两种方法的结合提高了诊断的准确性,支持在特定临床场景中同时使用,同时优化了成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
2.40%
发文量
326
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology is produced 12 times per year and publishes peer-reviewed original papers, reviews and editorials concerned with clinical practice and research in the fields of hepatology, gastroenterology and endoscopy. Papers cover the medical, radiological, pathological, biochemical, physiological and historical aspects of the subject areas. All submitted papers are reviewed by at least two referees expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信