ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2018
Role of Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization, Cholangioscopic Biopsies, and EUS-FNA in the Evaluation of Biliary Strictures.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic utility of targeted next-generation sequencing in indeterminate pancreaticobiliary cytology and small biopsy specimens: a prospective cohort study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Two scopes, one mission: An integrated approach of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound to biliary strictures.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy Performance of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) for Biliary Strictures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Implementing Massive Parallel Sequencing into Biliary Samples Obtained through Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Diagnosing Malignant Bile Duct Strictures.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Endoscopic evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures: Cholangioscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, or both?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2024Review
- Current Standards, Multidisciplinary Approaches, and Future Directions in the Management of Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
- Article
- Review
- Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: What Do We Know in 2023?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Digital Cholangioscopic Interpretation: When North Meets the South.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Observational
- New technologies for indeterminate biliary strictures.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022Review
- Clinical characteristics, risk factors and diagnostic outcomes of patients presented with indeterminate biliary stricture: A multicenter study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Next-Generation Biomarkers for Cholangiocarcinoma.Cancers · 2021Review
- Biliary Strictures and Cholangiocarcinoma - Untangling a Diagnostic Conundrum.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Determining the Indeterminate Biliary Stricture: Cholangioscopy and Beyond.Current gastroenterology reports · 2020Review
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Based Tissue Sampling in Suspected Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Meta-Analysis of Same-Session Procedures.Clinical endoscopy · 2020Review
- Cholangiocarcinoma: a site-specific update on the current state of surgical management and multi-modality therapy.Chinese clinical oncology · 2020Review
- Cholangiocarcinoma in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC): a Comprehensive Review.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2020Review
- Challenging biliary strictures: pathophysiological features, differential diagnosis, diagnostic algorithms, and new clinically relevant biomarkers - part 1.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsOur goal was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of FISH in the detection of malignancy compared with other standard diagnostic modalities, including brush cytology and biopsy specimens over a 10-year period of prospective data collection.
methodsWe conducted a review of all consecutive biliary strictures evaluated between 2006 and 2016. Patients with a final pathologic diagnosis or conclusive follow-up were included. We evaluated the performance of FISH polysomy (CEP 3, 7, and 17) and 9p21 deletion as well as cholangioscopic biopsy (CBx) and EUS-FNA. Statistical analysis was performed with the Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests.
resultsOf 382 patients with indeterminate strictures, 281 met inclusion criteria. Forty-nine percent were malignant. Cytology, FISH polysomy, and FISH polysomy/9p21 showed a specificity of 99.3%. FISH polysomy/9p21 as a single modality was the most sensitive at 56% (p < 0.001). The sensitivity of FISH polysomy/9p21 and cytology was significantly higher than cytology alone at 63 versus 35% (p < 0.05). EUS-FNA for distal strictures and CBx for proximal strictures increased sensitivity from 33 to 93% (p < 0.001) and 48-76% (p = 0.05) in cytology-negative strictures.
conclusionsThe high specificity of FISH polysomy/9p21 suggests that a positive result is sufficient for diagnosing malignancy in indeterminate strictures. The significantly higher sensitivity of FISH polysomy/9p21 compared to cytology supports the use of FISH in all non-diagnostic cases. Although both EUS-FNA and CBx were complimentary, our results suggest that distal strictures should be evaluated by EUS initially. Proximal strictures may be evaluated by FISH first and then by CBx if inconclusive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.