Peroral cholangioscopy-guided forceps biopsy versus fluoroscopy-guided forceps biopsy for extrahepatic biliary lesions.

Abstract

Background and AimEndoscopic 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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionsThe 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.