ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2021
Predictors of Malignancy in Patients With Indeterminate Biliary Strictures and Atypical Biliary Cytology: Results From Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk of Malignancy for Indeterminate Cytology of Bile Duct Strictures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Indeterminate Biliary Strictures: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Role of peroral cholangioscopy and pancreatoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of biliary and pancreatic disease: past, present, and future.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtypical cellular features are commonly encountered in patients with indeterminate biliary strictures, which are nondiagnostic of malignancy yet cannot rule it out. This study aims to identify clinical features that could discriminate patients with indeterminate biliary strictures and atypical biliary cytology who may harbor underlying malignancy.
methodsAll patients with an indeterminate biliary stricture and an atypical brush cytology obtained during endoscopic brushings were identified in a large tertiary-care center. Demographical information, clinical data and the final pathological diagnosis were collected. The study cohort was divided based on the final diagnosis into benign and malignant groups. Descriptive and multivariable analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 151 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 62.9% were males with mean age of 61.7 ± 16.4 years. Overall, there was an almost equal distribution of patients in the benign and malignant groups. Older age (≥65 years), jaundice, weight loss, intrahepatic biliary and pancreatic duct dilation, double-duct sign and presence of a mass were associated with malignancy in the univariate analysis. However, only older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00 to 1.03), jaundice (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 9.98) and presence of a mass (OR 12.10, 95% CI 4.94 to 29.67) were significantly associated with malignancy in the multivariate analysis. High CA19-9 was associated with malignancy only in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.
conclusionIn patients with indeterminate biliary stricture and atypical brush cytology, older age, jaundice and presence of a mass are significant predictors of malignancy. Patients with such characteristics need prompt evaluation to rule out underlying malignancy.
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.