Endoscopic Biopsies Versus Brushing ‎cytology in the Diagnosis of Various Gastro ‎intestinal Lesions With Special Reference to ‎gastric Tumours

Al-Diab, Jasim M.; Sahib, Fatah Abdul; Strak, Sarkis K

doi:10.33762/bsurg.2005.57514

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Malhotra [23] in his study took several cytology specimens including brush cytology before and after biopsy resulting in sensitivity of 80% & 86.6% respectively. Al Diab study [19] (brush cytology before biopsy) represented a sensitivity of (91.3%) which is nearer to the sensitivity of this study (94%), this may be explained by that two stromal tumors were included in present study, resulting in negative results and affecting the overall sensitivity. In three cases the brush smears were positive while endoscopic biopsy were negative, all the cases proved to be malignant by open biopsy, this means cytology added 6% to the diagnostic yield of malignancy, nearly similar results seen in Cusso study [24] (6.7%).…”

Section: Brush Cytology Resultsmentioning

confidence: 49%

“…[21] Three false negative cases seen in this study (1gastric lymphoma and 2 from duodenum-GIST), representing 6%. Al Diab [19] in his study reported 2 false negative cases out of 23 malignant cases (8.6%). Cusso [24] presented (3%) for false negative cases, this lower result in the latter study may be explained by that lymphomas and stromal tumors were excluded.…”

Section: Brush Cytology Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The latter study includes 903 patients with malignant lesion and done over 12 years period. Al Diab [19] study gave a nearer sensitivity (91.3%), but it represented the results of both benign and malignant lesions. The sensitivity of endoscopic biopsy in this study is nearer to that of Malhotra [23] and Cusso [24] studies (90% & 92.3% respectively), however, the relatively lower percent in present study may be explained by the number of biopsies taken, facilities and also whether stromal tumors were included or excluded from the statistical analysis.…”

Section: Brush Cytology Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…[18] More than one study done in Basrah to evaluate the sensitivity of brush cytology considering endoscopic tissue biopsy as standard. [19,20] Therefore, the present study was carried out to evaluate the sensitivity and clinical utility of endoscopic biopsy and brushing cytology versus open tissue biopsy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Endoscopic Biopsy and Brushing Cytology Compared to Open Tissue Biopsy a Study of 50 Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Malignancies

Jasim¹,

Hamadi²

2009

MJBU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The use of fiberoptic endoscopy revolutionized diagnostic gastroenterology. The ultimate diagnosis of malignancy is based on histologic or cytologic criteria. Cytology is a valuable adjunct to biopsy, with the combined yield of the two superior to the yield of either individual technique. Studies done in Basrah evaluated the diagnostic efficiency of brushing cytology, considering endoscopic biopsy results as a gold standard. Aim: To evaluate the clinical utility of endoscopic biopsy and brush cytology versus open biopsies. Material and Methods: Over the period from October 2002 to October 2006, fifty patients were selected with a high suspicion of malignancy by endoscopic examination. Endoscopic biopsy and brush cytology were taken. All the fifty patients proved to have malignancy depending on histopathological finding of open tissue biopsies. The cytology smears were fixed in 95% ethyl alcohol and stained by Papanicolaou stain while the histological specimens processed routinely and stained by hematoxylin and eosin. Analysis done for the results of both techniques and compared with other studies. Results: From the 50 patients with malignancy, brush cytology was positive in 47(sensitivity 94%) and the endoscopic biopsy in 44(sensitivity 88%). Brush cytology diagnosed 3 cases with negative endoscopic biopsy and thus added 6% to the diagnostic yield of malignancy. Conclusion: Brush cytology got higher sensitivity than endoscopic biopsy; however, the two techniques are complementary for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal tract malignancies.

show abstract

Section: Brush Cytology Resultsmentioning

confidence: 49%

Section: Brush Cytology Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Brush Cytology Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Endoscopic Biopsy and Brushing Cytology Compared to Open Tissue Biopsy a Study of 50 Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Malignancies

Jasim¹,

Hamadi²

2009

MJBU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include the lesions in esophagus, stomach, and duodenum. The pattern of primary cancers vary in different regions of the world depending upon the genetic, cultural, dietary, and socioeconomic factor 1 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic utility of endoscopic brush cytology in upper gastrointestinal malignancies

Bhutani

Kumar

Arora

et al. 2020

Diagnostic Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The advent of endoscopy and endoscopic biopsy has greatly facilitated the detection and diagnosis of gastrointestinal neoplasms. Brush cytology often complements and increases the sensitivity and specificity of detection of GIT lesions in many ways. Materials and Methods The present prospective study was conducted in the Department of Pathology in collaboration with Department of Gastroenterology at S.G.T. Medical College and University, Gurugram. A total of 50 patients suspected of having upper gastrointestinal malignancies formed the study group. After taking the detailed history, patients were subjected to endoscopy using flexible video endoscope. After brushing, biopsies were taken from the lesions and preserved in 10% formalin. The aim of the study was to evaluate the utility of endoscopic brush cytology in diagnosing upper gastrointestinal malignancies and its comparison with endoscopic biopsy. Results In the present study, a total of 50 cases constituted the study group, during the period of 2018‐2019, with the age of patients ranging from 30 to 85 years. Mean age at presentation was 58 years. The most frequent age group affected was 41‐60 (44%) and most of them were men (66%). The sensitivity and positive predictive value in our study is 84.4% and 97.4%, respectively, while the specificity and negative predictive value is 100% and 50%, respectively. Conclusion To conclude, brush cytology is a reliable, simple, safe, rapid, noninvasive yet effective, and inexpensive method of detecting malignancy of upper gastrointestinal tract.

show abstract

Brush cytology-alternative to endoscopic biopsy in diagnosing malignancy

Malhotra¹,

Kumar²,

Chhabra³

et al. 2020

GHOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Endoscopic Biopsies Versus Brushing ‎cytology in the Diagnosis of Various Gastro ‎intestinal Lesions With Special Reference to ‎gastric Tumours

Cited by 3 publications

References 12 publications

Endoscopic Biopsy and Brushing Cytology Compared to Open Tissue Biopsy a Study of 50 Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Malignancies

Endoscopic Biopsy and Brushing Cytology Compared to Open Tissue Biopsy a Study of 50 Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Malignancies

Diagnostic utility of endoscopic brush cytology in upper gastrointestinal malignancies

Brush cytology-alternative to endoscopic biopsy in diagnosing malignancy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About