z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Peroral cholangioscopy‐guided forceps biopsy versus fluoroscopy‐guided forceps biopsy for extrahepatic biliary lesions
Author(s) -
Onoyama Takumi,
Hamamoto Wataru,
Sakamoto Yuri,
Kawahara Shiho,
Yamashita Taro,
Koda Hiroki,
Kawata Soichiro,
Takeda Yohei,
Matsumoto Kazuya,
Isomoto Hajime
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
jgh open
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.546
H-Index - 8
ISSN - 2397-9070
DOI - 10.1002/jgh3.12403
Subject(s) - medicine , forceps , fluoroscopy , endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography , biopsy , adverse effect , radiology , propensity score matching , cohort , retrospective cohort study , gastroenterology , surgery , pancreatitis
Abstract Background and Aim Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)‐related tissue acquisition, including fluoroscopy‐guided forceps biopsy (F‐FB), is a common technique in diagnosing indeterminate biliary lesions. Recently, peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) and POCS‐guided forceps biopsy (POCS‐FB) has also been used for the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesions. However, it is uncertain which of those techniques were superior for the diagnosis of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of F‐FB for indeterminate biliary lesions compared with POCS‐FB. Methods Patients who underwent F‐FB or POCS‐FB to evaluate indeterminate biliary lesions between October 2011 and August 2019 were enrolled retrospectively. We carried out propensity score matching to balance these clinical differences between the F‐FB group and POCS‐FB group. In the propensity score‐matched cohort, we compared the diagnostic performance of F‐FB with that of POCS‐FB based on the pathological evaluation. We also evaluate adverse events associated with F‐FB and POCS‐FB. Results We enrolled 113 patients with biliary diseases, and 62 patients were analyzed in the propensity score‐matched cohort. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of F‐FB were 82.4, 100, and 90.3%, and for POCS‐FB, those values were 83.3, 100, and 90.3%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the diagnostic performance between F‐FB and POCS‐FB. There were also no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between F‐FB and POCS‐FB (41.9 vs 29.0%, P = 0.289). Conclusions The diagnostic yield of F‐FB for ECC is similar to that of POCS‐FB. POCS‐FB is not necessary for the initial pathological diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesions.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here