Skip to main content

Next Generation Sequencing for the Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Biliary Strictures

In brief

Adding NGS to biopsy raises malignant biliary stricture detection to 78%

In a real-world series, next-generation sequencing of endoscopic biopsies identified cancer in 65% of strictures, outperforming standard pathology's 52% while maintaining similar specificity. When NGS results were combined with histopathology, sensitivity climbed to 78% without losing accuracy. These findings suggest NGS could become a routine adjunct, but larger studies are needed to confirm its impact on patient management.

Journal
Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver (Q1)
Published
1 October 2026
Study design
Cross-sectional study
Evidence level
Level 3, Low (CEBM 3b)
Authors
Antonia Gillmeister, Julia Husman, Renate Schmelz, Stefan Brückner, Jochen Hampe, Daniela Aust, et al.
PMID
42698384
DOI
10.1111/liv.70865

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

The differentiation between benign and malignant biliary strictures remains a significant clinical challenge. Recent studies have suggested that next generation sequencing (NGS) can improve the diagnostic accuracy. However, evidence on its performance in routine clinical practice is limited. Therefore, validation of the diagnostic value of NGS using real-world clinical data is warranted. We compared the performance of NGS analysis of cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC)-associated mutations in endoscopic biopsies with that of histopathology, CA19-9 and cross-sectional imaging. NGS showed higher sensitivity for malignancy (65%) compared to histopathology (52%) at similar specificity (96% vs. 100%). The combination of NGS and histopathology further increased sensitivity for malignancy to 78% (p = 0.03) at similar specificity (96%). Our data provide support for the use of NGS in the diagnostic workup of biliary strictures.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.