BACKGROUND The preparation of conventional smears (CS) from mucoid samples, despite mucolysis, can pose difficulties for cytotechnologists or cytopathologists. In recent years, liquid-based cytology (LBC) devices have been developed in attempts to improve the cytopreparation process. LBC improves both sample collection and sample preparation. Cell block preparations (CB) can be made from residual tissue fluids, and are a useful adjunct to smears. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 3 preparations from 209 patients whose diagnosis was later confirmed via bronchoscopic biopsy, fine needle aspiration, gun biopsy or operation. Each case was categorized into one of three groups: "negative," "atypical or suspicious" and "malignant." RESULTS: When conflating the "atypical" and "malignant" categories into a "positive" category, the sensitivity of each preparation was 74.4% in LBC, 72.9% in CS, and 76.5% in CB preparations. Specificity was 98.7%, 94.7% and 98.7%, respectively. By combining LBC and CB, the sensitivity is 78.2%. CONCLUSIONS Among three different preparation methods, sensitivity is highest in the CB method. LBC has many advantages in evaluating cell morphology and by combining CB method, the sensitivity can be improved slightly. The application of all three methods may prove helpful when one or another method proves diagnostically inconclusive.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy between CellprepPlus® and ThinPrep® liquid‐based preparations in effusion cytology Yong‐Moon Lee, Ji‐Yong Hwang, Seung‐Myoung Son, Song‐Yi Choi, Ho‐Chang Lee, Eun‐Joong Kim, Hye‐Suk Han, Jin young An, Joung‐Ho Han, Ok‐Jun Lee Diagnostic Cytopathology.2014; 42(5): 384. CrossRef
Evaluation of Urine Cytology in Urothelial Carcinoma Patients: A Comparison of CellprepPlus® Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear Seung-Myoung Son, Ji Hae Koo, Song-Yi Choi, Ho-Chang Lee, Yong-Moon Lee, Hyung Geun Song, Hae-Kyung Hwang, Hye-Suk Han, Seok-Joong Yun, Wun-Jae Kim, Eun-Joong Kim, Ok-Jun Lee Korean Journal of Pathology.2012; 46(1): 68. CrossRef