Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28664934›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2017

Cytologic predictors of malignancy in bile duct brushings: a multi-reviewer analysis of 60 cases.

Vaidehi Avadhani, Ezgi Hacihasanoglu, Bahar Memis, Burcin Pehlivanoglu, Krisztina Z Hanley, Uma Krishnamurti, Alyssa M Krasinskas, Adeboye O Osunkoya, Lauren M Daniels, Alexa A Freedman and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Tiny but mighty: use of next generation sequencing on discarded cytocentrifuged bile duct brushing specimens to increase sensitivity of cytological diagnosis.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Vaidehi AvadhaniDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ezgi HacihasanogluDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Bahar MemisDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Burcin PehlivanogluDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Krisztina Z HanleyDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Uma KrishnamurtiDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5848-8748
Alyssa M KrasinskasDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Adeboye O OsunkoyaDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Lauren M DanielsDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Alexa A FreedmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Michael GoodmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Volkan AdsayDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Michelle D ReidDepartment of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnosing malignancy in bile duct brushings is highly challenging. Seven reviewers of variable backgrounds and levels of participation in bile duct brushing sign out blindly reviewed 60 specimens (30 malignant with histologic confirmation and 30 benign (15 stented) with resection or ≥18 months of uneventful follow-up), testing the utility of 14 malignant characteristics. Eleven characteristics were statistically significantly associated with malignancy including 3-dimensional clusters (63% in malignant vs 3% in benign, odds ratio 50, P=0.0003), pleomorphism (62 vs 3, odds ratio 48, P=0.0004), 2-cell population (60% vs 3, odds ratio 44, P=0.0005), chromatin pattern (hypo/hyperchromasia) changes (70% vs 7%, odds ratio 33, P<0.0001), high nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio (48 vs 3%, odds ratio 27, P=0.0023), cytoplasmic vacuoles (43 vs 3%, odds ratio 22, P=0.0042), nuclear irregularity (70 vs 10%, odds ratio 21, P<0.0001), cellular discohesion (38 vs 3%, odds ratio 18, P=0.0082), hypercellularity (23% vs 0), nuclear molding (20% vs 0) and prominent nucleoli (21% vs 0). Necrosis and infiltrating inflammation were not helpful in identifying malignancy ('neutrophil cannibalism' was noted in 43% malignant); 21/30 (70%) malignant brushings had ≥3 malignant characteristics, while 23 (77%) benign brushings had none. Of 20 brushings with ≥4 characteristics, 1(5%) proved benign and showed detachment atypia, a close malignant mimicker in brushings. Identification of 3 characteristics maximized the combined sensitivity (70%), specificity (97%) and accuracy (83%), but sensitivity dropped as number of characteristics increased. Identification of 3/11 characteristics (3-dimensional clusters, pleomorphism, high nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio, nuclear irregularity, hypercellularity, discohesion, chromatin changes, vacuoles, prominent nucleoli, molding and 2-cell population) improves pathologists' overall performance greatly.

Indexed as

CytodiagnosisPathologistsBile Duct NeoplasmsBile DuctsChi-Square DistributionCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeEpithelial CellsHumansLogistic ModelsObserver VariationOdds RatioPapanicolaou TestPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsSpecimen Handling

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.