#PAGE_PARAMS# #ADS_HEAD_SCRIPTS# #MICRODATA#
CS
proLékaře.cz / Journals / Czecho-Slovak Pathology / 2024 - 2

Pitfalls of cytological diagnosis of tumours of the pancreaticobiliary tract

Czech version

Authors: Dušan Žiak 1,2;  Vladimír Židlík 1,2,3;  Eva Kundrátová 4;  Jaroslav Horáček 1,3;  Robert Ondruššek 2;  Valeria Skopelidou 1,3;  Pavel Hurník 1,2,3
Authors‘ workplace: Ústav klinické a molekulární patologie a lékařské genetiky, FNO, Ostrava 1;  Oddělení patologie, EUC Laboratoře CGB a. s., Ostrava-Vítkovice 2;  Ústav klinické a molekulární patologie a lékařské genetiky, LF OU, Ostrava 3;  Centrum péče o zažívací trakt, Nemocnice AGEL, Ostrava-Vítkovice 4
Published in: Čes.-slov. Patol., 60, 2024, No. 2, p. 102-111
Category: Reviews Article

Overview

The recent introduction of the WHO cytology classification of pancreatobiliary tumours aimed to improve the diagnosis and management of these tumours. The present paper briefly describes the methods of diagnosis. Emphasis is then put on a detailed comparison of the previous Papanicolaou classification and the new WHO classification and description of the changes brought about by the introduction of the WHO classification. In the last part of the paper, we present interesting cases from our practice illustrating possible diagnostic pitfalls of cytological evaluation.

Keywords:

cytology – Papanicolaou system – WHO Classification system – Pancreatobiliary pathology

Sources
  1. Kanno A, Yasuda I, Irisawa A, et al. Adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for histologic diagnosis in Japanese tertiary centers: Multicenter retrospective study. Dig Endosc 2021; 33(7):1146–1157.
  2. Tanaka Y, Ogawa H, Uchino K, et al. Immunohistochemical studies of pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma: a possible association between staining patterns with neuroendocrine markers and tumor response to chemotherapy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145(3): 839–846.
  3. Freitas PS, Janicas C, Veiga J, Matos AP, Herédia V, Ramalho M. Imaging evaluation of the liver in oncology patients: A comparison of techniques. World J Hepatol 2021; 27;13(12): 1936–1955.
  4. Galvin A, Sutherland T, Little AF. Part 1: CT characterisation of pancreatic neoplasms: a pictorial essay. Insights Imaging 2011; 18;2(4): 379–388.
  5. Nessi R, Gattoni F, Boioli F, Tagliaferri B, Baldini U, Uslenghi C. Cholangiographically-enhanced CT of the pancreas and biliary tree. Int Surg 1988; 73(1): 38–41.
  6. Berland LL, Lawson TL, Foley WD, Greenen JE, Stewart ET. Computed tomography of the normal and abnormal pancreatic duct: correlation with pancreatic ductography. Radiology 1981; 141(3): 715–724.
  7. Tamm EP, Loyer EM, Faria SC, Evans DB, Wolff RA, Charnsangavej C. Retrospective analysis of dual-phase MDCT and follow-up EUS/EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Abdom Imaging 2007; 32(5): 660–667.
  8. Lee HJ, Kim MJ, Choi JY, Hong HS, Kim KA. Relative accuracy of CT and MRI in the differentiation of benign from malignant pancreatic cystic lesions. Clin Radiol 2011; 66(4): 315–321.
  9. Giovannini M, Hookey LC, Bories E, Pesenti C, Monges G, Delpero JR. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography: the first step towards virtual biopsy? Preliminary results in 49 patients. Endoscopy 2006; 38(4): 344–348.
  10. Kamata K, Kitano M, Kudo M, et al. Value of EUS in early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas in patients with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Endoscopy 2014; 46(1): 22–29.
  11. Kitano M, Yoshida T, Itonaga M, Tamura T, Hatamaru K, Yamashita Y. Impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol 2019; 54(1):19–32.
  12. Narayanan S, Martin AN, Turrentine FE, Bauer TW, Adams RB, Zaydfudim VM. Mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy: assessing early and late causes of patient death. J Surg Res 2018; 231: 304–308.
  13. Oliverius M. Chirurgická léčba resekabilního a hraničně resekabilního karcinomu slinivky břišní. Onkologie 2023; 17(2): 82–85.
  14. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102(8):1781–1788.
  15. Katsinelos P, Lazaraki G, Chatzimavroudis G, et al. Risk factors for therapeutic ERCP-related complications: an analysis of 2,715 cases performed by a single endoscopist. Ann Gastroenterol 2014; 27(1): 65–72.
  16. Korc P, Sherman S. ERCP tissue sampling.Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84(4): 557–571.
  17. Nanda A, Brown JM, Berger SH, et al. Triple modality testing by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2015; 8(2): 56–65.
  18. Naitoh I, Nakazawa T, Kato A, et al. Predictive factors for positive diagnosis of malignant biliary strictures by transpapillary brush cytology and forceps biopsy. J Dig Dis 2016; 17(1): 44–51.
  19. Schoefl R, Haefner M, Wrba F, et al. Forceps biopsy and brush cytology during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of biliary stenoses. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997; 32(4): 363–368.
  20. Jenssen C, Alvarez-Sánchez MV, Napoléon B, Faiss S. Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: Assessment of safety and prevention of complications. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18(34): 4659–4676.
  21. El Hajj II, Wu H, Reuss S, et al. Prospective Assessment of the Performance of a New Fine Needle Biopsy Device for EUS-Guided Sampling of Solid Lesions. Clin Endosc 2018; 51(6): 576–583.
  22. Mohan BP, Shakhatreh M, Garg R, et al. Comparison of Franseen and fork-tip needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid mass lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopic Ultrasound 2019; 8(6):382.
  1. Hocke M, Dietrich CF. Vascularisation Pattern of Chronic Pancreatitis Compared with Pancreatic Carcinoma: Results from Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasound. Int J Inflam 2012; 2012: 420787.
  2. Chen YI, Chatterjee A, Berger R, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy 2022; 54(1): 4–12.
  3. Beech C, Freedman-Weiss M, Salem R, Jain D, Zhang X. Pancreatic Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm With Elevated Pre-Operative Cystic Carcinoembryonic Antigen Level: A Histopathologic Correlation. Gastroenterology Res 2019; 12(4): 185–190.
  4. Yasuda I, Iwashita T, Doi S, Nakashima M, Moriwaki H. Role of EUS in the early detection of small pancreatic cancer. Dig Endosc 2011; 23 Suppl 1: 22–25.
  5. Vítek P, Urban O, Hucl T, et al. Cholangiopankreatoskopie – doporučený postup České gastroenterologické společnosti ČLS JEP. Gastroenterologie a hepatologie 2018; 72(3): 199-204.
  6. Prinz C, Weber A, Goecke S, Neu B, Meining A, Frimberger E. A new peroral mother-baby endoscope system for biliary tract disorders. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 6(1): 20–6.
  7. Lee YN, Moon JH, Choi HJ, et al. Tissue acquisition for diagnosis of biliary strictures using peroral cholangioscopy or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopy 2019; 51(1): 50–59.
  8. Alameel T, Bain V, Sandha G. Clinical application of a single-operator direct visualization system improves the diagnostic and therapeutic yield of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27(1): 15–19.
  9. Tamada K, Kurihara K, Tomiyama T, et al. How many biopsies should be performed during percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy to diagnose biliary tract cancer? Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50(5): 653–658.
  10. Urban O, Evinová E, Fojtík P, et al. Digital cholangioscopy: the diagnostic yield and impact on management of patients with biliary stricture. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018; 53(10–11): 1364–1367.
  11. Shakoori AR. Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) and Its Applications. In: Bhat T, Wani A, eds. Chromosome Structure and Aberrations. Springer, New Delhi; 2017: 343–367.
  12. Volmar KE, Vollmer RT, Routbort MJ, Creager AJ. Pancreatic and bile duct brushing cytology in 1000 cases: review of findings and comparison of preparation methods. Cancer 2006; 108(4): 231–238.
  13. Zoundjiekpon VD, Falt P, Zapletalová J, et al. Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Primary Diagnosis of Biliary Strictures: A Single-Center Prospective Interventional Study.Biomedicines 2023; 11(3): 755.
  14. Barr Fritcher EG, Voss JS, Brankley SM, et al. An Optimized Set of Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Probes for Detection of Pancreatobiliary Tract Cancer in Cytology Brush Samples. Gastroenterology 2015; 149(7):1813-1824
  15. Liew ZH, Loh TJ, Lim TKH, et al. Role of fluorescence in situ hybridization in diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma in indeterminate biliary strictures. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 33(1):315–319.
  16. Kipp BR, Barr Fritcher EG, Clayton AC, et al. Comparison of KRAS Mutation Analysis and FISH for Detecting Pancreatobiliary Tract Cancer in Cytology Specimens Collected During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. J Mol Diagn 2010; 12(6): 780–786.
  17. Gonda TA, Viterbo D, Gausman V, et al. Mutation Profile and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Analyses Increase Detection of Malignancies in Biliary Strictures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15(6): 913-919
  18. Harbhajanka A, Michael CW, Janaki N, et al. Tiny but mighty: use of next generation sequencing on discarded cytocentrifuged bile duct brushing specimens to increase sensitivity of cytological diagnosis. Mod Pathol 2020; 33(10): 2019–2025.
  19. Fugazza A, Gaiani F, Carra MC, et al. Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in Gastrointestinal and Pancreatobiliary Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016: 4638683.
  20. Nakai Y, Iwashita T, Park DH, Samarasena JB, Lee JG, Chang KJ. Diagnosis of pancreatic cysts: EUS-guided, through-the-needle confocal laser-induced endomicroscopy and cystoscopy trial: DETECT study. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81(5): 1204–1214.
  21. Slivka A, Gan I, Jamidar P, et al. Validation of the diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for the characterization of indeterminate biliary strictures: results of a prospective multicenter international study. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81(2):282–290.
  22. Kawaguchi Y, Mine T. Endoscopic approach to the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic tumor. World J Gastrointest Onco 2016; 8(2): 159–164.
  23. Pitman MB, Layfield LJ. The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes. Springer, Cham; 2015: 1-87
  24. Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Reid MD, et al. A brief review of the WHO reporting system for pancreaticobiliary cytopathology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2023; 12(4): 243–250.
  25. Saieg M, Pitman MB. Experience and future perspectives on the use of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Terminology System for reporting pancreaticobiliary cytology.Diagn Cytopathol 2020; 48(5): 494–498.
  26. Pitman MB, Layfield LJ. Guidelines for pancreaticobiliary cytology from the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology: A review. Cancer Cytopathol 2014; 122(6): 399–411.
  27. Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Ali SZ, et al. Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines. Cytojournal 2014; 11(Suppl 1): 3.
  28. Hoda RS, Finer EB, Arpin RN, Rosenbaum M, Pitman MB. Risk of malignancy in the categories of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology system for reporting pancreaticobiliary cytology. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2019; 8(3): 120–127.
  29. Gocun PU, Simsek B, Ekinci O, et al. Risk of Malignancy Using the Diagnostic Categories Proposed by the World Health Organization International System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology. Acta Cytol 2022; 66(6): 475–485.
  30. Sung S, Del Portillo A, Gonda TA, Kluger MD, Tiscornia-Wasserman PG. Update on risk stratification in the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology categories: 3-Year, prospective, single-institution experience. Cancer Cytopathol 2020; 128(1): 29–35.
  31. Layfield LJ, Dodd L, Factor R, Schmidt RL. Malignancy risk associated with diagnostic categories defined by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology pancreaticobiliary guidelines. Cancer Cytopathol 2014; 122(6):420–427.
  32. Hoda RS, Arpin RN, Rosenbaum MW, Pitman MB. Risk of malignancy associated with diagnostic categories of the proposed World Health Organization International System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology. Cancer Cytopathol 2022; 130(3): 195–201.
  33. McKinley M, Newman M. Observations on the application of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology standardised terminology and nomenclature for pancreaticobiliary cytology. Pathology 2016; 48(4): 353–356.
  34. Perez-Machado MA. Pancreatic cytology: standardised terminology and nomenclature. Cytopathology 2016; 27(3): 157–160.
  35. Hoda RS, Pitman MB. Pancreatic Cytology.Surg Pathol Clin 2018; 11(3): 563–588.
  36. Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Reid MD, et al. The World Health Organization Reporting System for Pancreaticobiliary Cytopathology. Acta Cytol 2023; 67(3): 304–320.
  37. Nikas IP, Proctor T, Seide S, Chatziioannou SS, Reynolds JP, Ntourakis D. Diagnostic Performance of Pancreatic Cytology with the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System: A Systematic Review, before Shifting into the Upcoming WHO International System. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23(3): 1650.
Labels
Anatomical pathology Forensic medical examiner Toxicology
EDITORIAL
INTERVIEW
MONITOR
Intraductal and cystic pancreatic neoplasia
How to improve pre-operative diagnostics of pancreatobiliary lesions? From immunohistochemistry to Next Generation Sequencing
Current diagnostic and treatment options for pancreatic cancer in 2024
Solitary fibrous tumor of thyroid: Case report
Calcific Aortic Stenosis – Inflammatory Disease
Article was published in

Czecho-Slovak Pathology

Issue 2
2024 Issue 2
Most read in this issue
Topics Journals
Login
Forgotten password

Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.

Login

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account

#ADS_BOTTOM_SCRIPTS#