No abstract

Background: Peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) has become a widely-used technique in diagnosing indeterminate biliary strictures, enabling optical viewing of the biliary system and targeted biopsies under direct vision. The diagnostic utility of the new endoscopic scraper, Trefle®, for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) has also been reported. However, the diagnostic utility of POCS-guided and Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition for ECC has never been compared empirically. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition for diagnosing ECC compared with POCS-guided tissue sampling. Methods: Patients who underwent Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition or POCS-guided forceps biopsy to differentiate ECC from benign biliary disease between April 2014 and March 2018 were enrolled retrospectively. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition and POCS-guided forceps biopsy based on pathological evaluation. We also compared adverse events associated with Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition with those of POCS-guided forceps biopsy. Results: We enrolled 34 patients with biliary disease and performed Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition and POCS-guided forceps biopsy in 14 and 20 patients, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition were 87.5%, 83.3%, and 85.7%, respectively, and for POCS-guided forceps biopsy, these were 90.0% each. Statistical values of Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition and POCS-guided tissue acquisition were not significantly different. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between the Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition and the POCS-guided forceps biopsy (35.7% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.770). Compared with patients who underwent POCS procedure, endoscopic sphincterotomy was performed for fewer patients who underwent Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The diagnostic ability of Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition for ECC is similar to that of POCS-guided tissue acquisition. Trefle®-assisted tissue acquisition might also help to preserve the sphincter of Oddi and its digestive function.

No 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.

Background: Peroral cholangioscopy (POCS)-guided forceps biopsy is a method for diagnosing indeterminate biliary strictures and for the preoperative identification of the exact perihilar and distal margins of biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, POCS-guided forceps biopsy may result in an insufficient amount of specimen at times. Therefore, we evaluated the adequate tissue acquisition rate and the factors affecting the adequate tissue acquisition of POCS-guided forceps biopsy for the biliary tract.Methods: Patients who underwent POCS-guided forceps biopsy for biliary disease between September 2016 and October 2018 at our hospital were enrolled retrospectively. We evaluated the adequate tissue acquisition rate of POCS-guided forceps biopsy for the biliary lesion and that for non-stenotic bile duct.In addition, the factors affecting the adequate tissue acquisition rate of POCS-guided forceps biopsy were evaluated.Results: We enrolled 47 patients with biliary disease and performed POCS-guided forceps biopsy for biliary lesion and POCS-guided forceps mapping biopsy for non-stenotic bile duct in 40 and 36 patients, respectively. The adequate tissue acquisition rates of POCS-guided forceps biopsy for biliary lesions and that for non-stenotic bile duct were 86.4%, and 68.9%, respectively. In the multivariate logistic regression analyses, age, and previous biliary stenting before POCS were factors affecting the adequate tissue acquisition rate of POCS-guided forceps biopsy for the biliary lesion. For non-stenotic bile duct, the location of the biliary lesion, endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and procedure time of POCS were factors affecting the adequate tissue acquisition rate of POCS-guided forceps mapping biopsy.Conclusions: Previous biliary stenting was a factor affecting a low tissue acquisition rate of POCS-guided forceps biopsy for the biliary lesion. In the POCS-guided forceps mapping biopsy, the location of the biliary lesion, EST, and procedure time were factors affecting tissue acquisition rates.