ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Yield of next-generation sequencing in diagnostic work up of suspicious biliary strictures.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- DNA/RNA-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Improves the Early Diagnosis and Management of Neoplastic Bile Duct Strictures: A 6-Year, Prospective, Multi-Institutional, Real-Time Study.Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Evolving techniques to optimize ERCP-based sampling and evaluation of malignant biliary strictures.Gastroenterology report · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: This study addressed the need for improved diagnostic tools to identify malignancy in suspicious biliary strictures. Traditional cytological morphology is often indecisive, prompting exploration of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for enhanced sensitivity. Our aim was to evaluate NGS's additional value in classifying biliary brushes and biopsies and its impact on clinical decision making (CDM). Patients and methods: In this retrospective single-center cohort study, patients were included from 2019 to 2022 in whom morphologic interpretation and NGS were performed on cytological or histological material from suspicious biliary strictures. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were calculated for benign or atypical vs. suspicious for malignancy or malignant morphology in biliary brushes and biopsies. In addition, changes in CDM after NGS outcome were evaluated. Results: In total 109 samples from 106 patients were included in the study. NGS correctly identified 42 of 75 malignancies (56%). Sensitivity and specificity of morphology for brushes were 56% (95% confidence interval [CI] 43%-68%) and 94% (95% CI 79%-99%), respectively. Adding NGS resulted in sensitivity and specificity of 78% (95% CI 66%-87%) and 94% (95% CI 79%-99%). For biopsies, sensitivity and specificity of morphology were 67% (95% CI 35%-90%) and 67% (95% CI 9%-99%) and adding NGS did not alter these results. The outcome of NGS resulted in a change of classification of morphology in 36% and a change in CDM in 8%. Conclusions: NGS in brushes contributed to more accurate/sensitive diagnoses of malignancy than morphology alone. There was a limited impact on CDM change, but in the future, NGS will undoubtedly play a bigger role when targeted therapy is incorporated in standard treatment and more sensitive NGS panels for cholangiocarcinoma are developed.
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.