OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate liquid-based preparations (LBP) as a replacement for conventional smears (CS) of bronchial brushing (BB) and transbronchial fine-needle aspiration (TBNA) samples obtained via fiberoptic bronchoscope. STUDY DESIGN: Bronchial brushing and TBNA samples were obtained from 62 and 33 patients by fiberoptic bronchoscopy, respectively. Liquid-based preparations were prepared from needle rinse after initial CS preparation. We compared cellularity, cell morphology, and background between the LBP and CS slides. RESULTS: Correspondence rates between LBP and CS diagnoses in the above 3 categories were 90.3% in the BB and 97.0% in the TBNA samples. If suspicious cases were regarded as malignant, correspondence rates reached 98.4 and 100%, respectively. Histological diagnoses by LBP were mostly the same as those by CS and by biopsy or operation samples. Morphologically, cells and nuclei were shrunk in the LBP; however, the shrinking was not severe enough to influence cytological diagnoses. Blood background and air-drying, which were observed on many of the CS slides, were not detected on the LBP slides. CONCLUSION: It is possible to use LBP for routine laboratory processing of BB and TBNA samples as a replacement for CS.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate liquid-based preparations (LBP) as a replacement for conventional smears (CS) of bronchial brushing (BB) and transbronchial fine-needle aspiration (TBNA) samples obtained via fiberoptic bronchoscope. STUDY DESIGN: Bronchial brushing and TBNA samples were obtained from 62 and 33 patients by fiberoptic bronchoscopy, respectively. Liquid-based preparations were prepared from needle rinse after initial CS preparation. We compared cellularity, cell morphology, and background between the LBP and CS slides. RESULTS: Correspondence rates between LBP and CS diagnoses in the above 3 categories were 90.3% in the BB and 97.0% in the TBNA samples. If suspicious cases were regarded as malignant, correspondence rates reached 98.4 and 100%, respectively. Histological diagnoses by LBP were mostly the same as those by CS and by biopsy or operation samples. Morphologically, cells and nuclei were shrunk in the LBP; however, the shrinking was not severe enough to influence cytological diagnoses. Blood background and air-drying, which were observed on many of the CS slides, were not detected on the LBP slides. CONCLUSION: It is possible to use LBP for routine laboratory processing of BB and TBNA samples as a replacement for CS.