Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36292175›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

The Role of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Pancreatobiliary Brushing Cytology: A Large Retrospective Review with Histologic Correlation.

Jaffar Khan, Carlo De la Sancha, Mohammed Saad, Ahmad Alkashash, Asad Ullah, Fatimah Alruwaii, Luis Velasquez Zarate, Harvey M Cramer, Howard H Wu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jaffar KhanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Carlo De la SanchaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4134-5377
Mohammed SaadDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Ahmad AlkashashDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Asad UllahDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9435-9625
Fatimah AlruwaiiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
Luis Velasquez ZarateDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Augusta University School of Medicine, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.
Harvey M CramerDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Howard H WuDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Indiana University School of MedicineAugusta University · USHenry Ford Health System · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Although the specificity of brush cytology for the detection of malignant pancreaticobiliary strictures is high, its sensitivity is low. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) can be used to detect chromosomal aneuploidy in biliary brushing specimens, and when used as an adjunct to routine cytology, it significantly improves diagnostic sensitivity. (2) Methods: We searched our laboratory information system to identify all bile duct brush cytology cases with follow-up surgical pathology between January 2001 and September 2019. Cytologic diagnoses were classified as negative, atypical, suspicious, or malignant. Correlated surgical pathological diagnoses were classified as benign or malignant. FISH test results were obtained for a subset of cytology cases with concurrent FISH testing, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value in identifying malignancy for cytology alone, FISH alone, and combined cytology and FISH were calculated. (3) Results: A total of 1017 brushing cytology cases with histologic correlation were identified. A total of 193 FISH tests were performed concurrently with cytological specimens. Malignant diagnoses were identified in 623 of 1017 patients, while 394 patients had benign strictures. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive rate were 65%, 78%, 83%, and 49% for cytology alone; 72%, 67%, 63%, and 68% for FISH alone; and 85%, 42%, 60%, and 74% for combined cytology and FISH, respectively. Among FISH-positive cases, the risk of malignancy for polysomy was 82% and 32% for trisomy. (4) Conclusions: FISH improves the sensitivity and negative predictive rate of bile duct brush cytology. The combination of cytology and FISH has increased the sensitivity from 65% to 85% and the negative predictive rate from 49% to 74% when compared to cytology alone. A patient with a polysomy FISH result had a significantly higher risk of malignancy than a patient with a trisomy 7 result (82% vs. 32%, p < 0.00001).

Indexed as

bile duct brushingcytologyFISHpancreaticobiliary tract

Identifiers

PMID36292175
PMCPMC9600502
OpenAlexW4306377643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.