Comparison of Conventional Smear, Cell Block and Liquid-based Preparation in the Evaluation of Bronchial Washing Specimen in Lung Cancer Patients

Abstract

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.

Evaluation of Urine Cytology in Urothelial Carcinoma Patients: A Comparison of CellprepPlus® Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear

“…This is consistent with the earlier studies reported in the literature 2-10. CellprepPlus® LBC also shows a cleaner background with only a small amount of blood, inflammatory cells, and debris as reported in previous studies;5,6,9 therefore, CellprepPlus® LBC can identify malignant cells easier.…”

“…Unlike urine, other gynecologic and non-gynecologic conventional preparations generally have no problems with low cellularity. On the contrary, their high cellular contents require more screening time because of the increased number of slides per specimen and the non-uniform screening area 6,9-10. With LBC, instead of being smeared, cells are rinsed into a liquid collection medium and processed automatically.…”

“…On the contrary, their high cellular contents require more screening time because of the increased number of slides per specimen and the non-uniform screening area. 6 , 9 - 10 With LBC, instead of being smeared, cells are rinsed into a liquid collection medium and processed automatically. When compared with CS, LBC shows a higher cell yield and it reduces obscuring elements, therefore, LBC solves one of the big issues of low cellularity in urine cytology.…”

“…LBC has several advantages in preparation and diagnostic process compared with CS including: 1) automated and standardized processing techniques that produce a uniformly distributed and cell-enriched slide; 2) less obscuring elements in the background and the thin-layered cells require less time to make a diagnosis; 3) residual specimen can be used for ancillary techniques, such as immunocytochemistry and molecular studies. 2 - 10 …”

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy between CellprepPlus® and ThinPrep® liquid‐based preparations in effusion cytology

“…Many studies have compared liquid-based preparation methods, such as ThinPrepV R LBC, and the conventional smear, [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and some reports have also examined CellprepPlusV R LBC. 12,13 However, to our knowledge, only one study has compared the accuracy and unsatisfactory rates in cytology between CellPrepV R LBC and ThinPrepV R LBC.…”