ArticleGastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench2018
False negative and false positive rates in common bile duct brushing cytology, a single center experience.
Article in Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The World Health Organization System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology: Standardized Categories and Practical Approaches to Pancreatic Lesions.Journal of clinical and translational pathology · 2024Article
- Refined pancreatobiliary UroVysion criteria and an approach for further optimization.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Liquid biopsy in cholangiocarcinoma: Current status and future perspectives.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Cholangioscopy Biopsies Improve Detection of Cholangiocarcinoma When Combined with Cytology and FISH, but Not in Patients with PSC.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Article
- Diagnostic challenges in biliary cytology of biliary inflammatory pseudotumor of the liver: A case report and a review of the literature.Medicine internationalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimIn this study we tried to find out the accuracy of biliary tract brushing cytology in our center as the largest referral center in the south of Iran.
backgroundCommon bile duct brushing cytology has been introduced as the method of choice for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancies. However, there have been controversial reports about the sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of this method in the English literature.
methodsDuring the study period (2012-2016) there has been 166 cases of common bile duct brushing cytology taken during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). One case has been excluded because of inadequate number of cells in the cytology smear. All the smears have been stained by routine cytologic stains and screened by cytotechnologists and diagnosed by expert cytopathologist. Final diagnosis by biopsy has been considered as the gold standard.
resultsAccording to the final histologic diagnosis as the gold standard, there were 22 false negative and 7 false positive cases. All of the false positive cases have been suspected cases in the background of primary sclerosing cholangitis. The most common final diagnosis of false negative cytologic diagnoses has been intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in which no malignant cell has been identified in the presence of adequate number of normal ductal epithelial cells.
conclusionCommon bile duct brushing cytology is the method of choice for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary tract malignancies; however, having high specificity (90%), the sensitivity is low (56%). Cytologic diagnosis of biliary tract malignancies should be made with caution in the patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Also it is important to know that high false negative rate is present in common bile duct brushing cytology especially in the cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma without extension into extrahepatic ducts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30425807PMC6204244What 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.