OBJECTIVE: To compare cytomorphology preservation and immunohistochemistry results between conventional cell blocks (CCB) and cytoscrape cell blocks (SCB). STUDY DESIGN: Fine needle aspiration (FNAC) was done in 17 consecutive cases. Air-dried smears for May-Grünwald-Giemsa stain and wet-fixed smear for hematoxylin-eosin (H-E) stain were prepared. Simultaneously another pass was made in each case for preparation of material for CCB. One of the H-E-stained smears was spared for SCB. SCB was compared with CCB for cell morphology. Immunostaining was performed both cell blocks, as well as on FNA smears in 8 cases. Results were evaluated for intensity of staining and percentage of cells showing positivity. RESULTS: CCB and SCB sections showed adequate cellularity in all cases. Morphologic preservation was good in SCB sections. There was good architectural and nuclear preservation in all cases of SCB. Immunostaining results showed better and clear intensity of staining with little background in all cell block cases. CONCLUSION: SCB is a valuable technique in cell blocks from stained FNA smears. The cytomorphologic details are equally good in SCB and CCB. Additional panels of immunostaining can be done on SCB for better diagnosis and classification, particularly in cases in which repeat FNA is not possible.
OBJECTIVE: To compare cytomorphology preservation and immunohistochemistry results between conventional cell blocks (CCB) and cytoscrape cell blocks (SCB). STUDY DESIGN: Fine needle aspiration (FNAC) was done in 17 consecutive cases. Air-dried smears for May-Grünwald-Giemsa stain and wet-fixed smear for hematoxylin-eosin (H-E) stain were prepared. Simultaneously another pass was made in each case for preparation of material for CCB. One of the H-E-stained smears was spared for SCB. SCB was compared with CCB for cell morphology. Immunostaining was performed both cell blocks, as well as on FNA smears in 8 cases. Results were evaluated for intensity of staining and percentage of cells showing positivity. RESULTS:CCB and SCB sections showed adequate cellularity in all cases. Morphologic preservation was good in SCB sections. There was good architectural and nuclear preservation in all cases of SCB. Immunostaining results showed better and clear intensity of staining with little background in all cell block cases. CONCLUSION: SCB is a valuable technique in cell blocks from stained FNA smears. The cytomorphologic details are equally good in SCB and CCB. Additional panels of immunostaining can be done on SCB for better diagnosis and classification, particularly in cases in which repeat FNA is not possible.