Literature DB >> 22833404

The unsatisfactory ThinPrep® Pap Test™: analysis of technical aspects, most common causes, and recommendations for improvement.

Marilin Rosa1, Premila Pragasam, Jinous Saremian, Ana Aoalin, William Graf, Amir Mohammadi.   

Abstract

ThinPrep® preparation is a widely-used method for processing gynecologic specimens due to the many advantages of the technique. However, the presence of blood, inflammation, and lubricant, among other factors, can significantly interfere with specimen adequacy. The aim of this study was to identify and overcome the most common reasons for unsatisfactory ThinPrep® Pap Test™ results in our laboratory. From October 2010 to January 2011, we reprocessed cases categorized as "unsatisfactory for evaluation" to determine whether reprocessing these specimens would impact the unsatisfactory rate. Reasons for unsatisfactory results were classified as: technical reasons, scant cellularity, and complete obscuring factors. Two hundred fifty-three cases were initially classified as unsatisfactory. Of these, 226 cases were reprocessed. Ninety cases became satisfactory after reprocessing with an overall improvement of 40%. The most common reasons for unsatisfactory results were the presence of lubricant (96 cases), presence of blood (64 cases), and technical problems (33 cases). Cases affected by blood or technical issues showed a significant improvement after reprocessing (56.2% and 90.9%, respectively). However, unsatisfactory cases owed to the presence of lubricant showed a relatively low percentage of improvement (16.6%). The main reasons for unsatisfactory results, the presence of blood and lubricant, can be avoided in many cases if sampling is not performed during bleeding and if the use of lubricants is limited during sample collection. Our study showed that reprocessing of selected cases can improve the overall unsatisfactory rate and can potentially reduce the risk of missing significant lesions.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22833404     DOI: 10.1002/dc.22904

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol        ISSN: 1097-0339            Impact factor:   1.582


  8 in total

1.  Female-to-male patients have high prevalence of unsatisfactory Paps compared to non-transgender females: implications for cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Sarah M Peitzmeier; Sari L Reisner; Padmini Harigopal; Jennifer Potter
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Screening adolescents and young women.

Authors:  Lori A Boardman; Katina Robison
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 2.844

3.  Precancerous cervical lesions and HPV genotypes identified in previously unsatisfactory cervical smear tests after inexpensive glacial acetic acid processing.

Authors:  Carolann Risley; Kim R Geisinger; Jennifer C Robinson; Mary W Stewart; Lei Zhang; Rhonda Alexander; Stephen S Raab
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 3.561

4.  Comparison of Unsatisfactory Samples from Conventional Smear versus Liquid-Based Cytology in Uterine Cervical Cancer Screening Test.

Authors:  Hoiseon Jeong; Sung Ran Hong; Seoung-Wan Chae; So-Young Jin; Hye Kyoung Yoon; Juhie Lee; Eun Kyung Kim; Sook Tai Ha; Sung Nam Kim; Eun-Jung Park; Jong Jae Jung; Sun Hee Sung; Sung-Chul Lim
Journal:  J Pathol Transl Med       Date:  2017-04-17

5.  Detection of in situ and invasive endocervical adenocarcinoma on ThinPrep Pap Test: Morphologic analysis of false negative cases.

Authors:  Michael Chaump; Edyta C Pirog; Vinicius J A Panico; Alexandre Buckley D Meritens; Kevin Holcomb; Rana Hoda
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 2.091

6.  Liquid-Based Cytopathology Test: A Novel Method for Diagnosing Pulmonary Mucormycosis in Bronchial Brushing Samples.

Authors:  Xiaolin Jiang; Tian Yang; Qiyuan Li; Xianglan Zhu; Xueying Su; Jinnan Li; Yong Jiang
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 5.640

7.  Etiologic factors related to unsatisfactory ThinPrep(®) cervical cytology: Evaluation and potential solutions to improve.

Authors:  Tatyana Kalinicheva; Nora Frisch; Tamar Giorgadze; Shashi Madan; Anushree Shidham; Amarpreet Bhalla; Linette Mejias-Badillo; Paul Tranchida; Sudeshna Bandyopadhyay; Inderpreet Dhillon; Vinod B Shidham
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 2.091

8.  The effectiveness of acetic acid wash protocol and the interpretation patterns of blood contaminated cervical cytology ThinPrep(®) specimens.

Authors:  Nora K Frisch; Yasin Ahmed; Seema Sethi; Daniel Neill; Tatyana Kalinicheva; Vinod Shidham
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 2.091

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.