More Endoscopy-Based Brushing Passes Improve the Detection of Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Junjun Wang, Mingxing Xia, Yubiao Jin, Haiming Zheng, Zhenyang Shen, Weiming Dai, Xiaoman Li, Mei Kang, Rong Wan, Lungen Lu, Bing Hu, Xinjian Wan, Xiaobo Cai
{"title":"More Endoscopy-Based Brushing Passes Improve the Detection of Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Junjun Wang,&nbsp;Mingxing Xia,&nbsp;Yubiao Jin,&nbsp;Haiming Zheng,&nbsp;Zhenyang Shen,&nbsp;Weiming Dai,&nbsp;Xiaoman Li,&nbsp;Mei Kang,&nbsp;Rong Wan,&nbsp;Lungen Lu,&nbsp;Bing Hu,&nbsp;Xinjian Wan,&nbsp;Xiaobo Cai","doi":"10.14309/ajg.0000000000001666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Endoscopic biliary brushing is the most common method used for sampling in patients with malignant biliary strictures (MBSs); however, its sensitivity is relatively low. There is still no consensus on endoscopy-based biliary brushing, although brushing 10 times in 1 specimen is routinely performed. This study was designed to compare the sensitivity of brush cytology for 10, 20, or 30 brushing times of a pass in 1 specimen in patients with MBSs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study, patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected MBSs were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 10, 20, and 30 brushing times of a pass. The primary outcome was to compare the sensitivity of brush cytology among the 3 groups. Patients were prospectively followed up for 6 months after endoscopic brushing for malignancy diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 443 patients were enrolled for intention-to-treat analysis (147, 148, and 148 patients in the 10-times, 20-times, and 30-time groups, respectively). The 3 groups were similar in baseline characteristics. The sensitivity of brush cytology was 38%, 47%, and 57% in the 10-times, 20-times, and 30-times groups, respectively, and the 30-times group showed significantly higher sensitivity than the 10-times group (P = 0.001). The multivariate analysis revealed that stricture length and the number of brushing passes were significant factors for the detection of biliary malignancy. No significant differences were observed in procedure-related complications among the 3 groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Brushing 30 times could increase the diagnostic sensitivity without increasing complications and seems to be preferred for the endoscopic sampling and diagnosis of MBSs (chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR1800015978).</p>","PeriodicalId":188050,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"733-739"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Introduction: Endoscopic biliary brushing is the most common method used for sampling in patients with malignant biliary strictures (MBSs); however, its sensitivity is relatively low. There is still no consensus on endoscopy-based biliary brushing, although brushing 10 times in 1 specimen is routinely performed. This study was designed to compare the sensitivity of brush cytology for 10, 20, or 30 brushing times of a pass in 1 specimen in patients with MBSs.

Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study, patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected MBSs were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 10, 20, and 30 brushing times of a pass. The primary outcome was to compare the sensitivity of brush cytology among the 3 groups. Patients were prospectively followed up for 6 months after endoscopic brushing for malignancy diagnosis.

Results: A total of 443 patients were enrolled for intention-to-treat analysis (147, 148, and 148 patients in the 10-times, 20-times, and 30-time groups, respectively). The 3 groups were similar in baseline characteristics. The sensitivity of brush cytology was 38%, 47%, and 57% in the 10-times, 20-times, and 30-times groups, respectively, and the 30-times group showed significantly higher sensitivity than the 10-times group (P = 0.001). The multivariate analysis revealed that stricture length and the number of brushing passes were significant factors for the detection of biliary malignancy. No significant differences were observed in procedure-related complications among the 3 groups.

Discussion: Brushing 30 times could increase the diagnostic sensitivity without increasing complications and seems to be preferred for the endoscopic sampling and diagnosis of MBSs (chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR1800015978).

一项多中心随机对照试验:更多基于内窥镜的刷牙通过提高对恶性胆道狭窄的检测。
内镜下胆道刷毛是恶性胆道狭窄(MBSs)患者最常用的取样方法;但其灵敏度相对较低。尽管在一个标本中常规进行10次胆道刷洗,但在内窥镜基础上的胆道刷洗仍未达成共识。本研究旨在比较mbs患者1个标本每次刷牙10次、20次或30次时的刷细胞学敏感性。方法:在这项多中心、前瞻性、随机对照研究中,接受内窥镜逆行胆管造影检查疑似mbs的患者入组。患者被随机分配接受10次、20次和30次刷牙。主要观察结果是比较3组间刷细胞学检查的敏感性。患者在内镜下刷牙诊断恶性肿瘤后随访6个月。结果:共有443例患者入组进行意向治疗分析(10次、20次和30次组分别为147例、148例和148例)。3组的基线特征相似。10次组、20次组和30次组的刷细胞学检查灵敏度分别为38%、47%和57%,其中30次组的灵敏度显著高于10次组(P = 0.001)。多因素分析显示,狭窄长度和刷管次数是检测胆道恶性肿瘤的重要因素。三组手术相关并发症发生率无显著差异。讨论:30次刷牙可提高诊断灵敏度,且不增加并发症,似乎是内镜下MBSs取样和诊断的首选方法(chictr.com,标识:ChiCTR1800015978)。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书