Hrishikesh Dadhich1, Pampa Ch Toi2, Neelaiah Siddaraju3, Kalidas Sevvanthi1. 1. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, 605006, India. 2. Department of Pathology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, 605006, India. pampa.toi@gmail.com. 3. Department of Pathology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, 605006, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinically, detection of malignant cells in serous body fluids is critical, as their presence implies the upstaging of the disease. Cytology of body cavity fluids serves as an important tool when other diagnostic tests cannot be performed. In most laboratories, currently, the effusion fluid samples are analysed chiefly by the conventional cytopreparatory (CCP) technique. Although, there are several studies comparing the liquid-based cytology (LBC), with CCP technique in the field of cervicovaginal cytology; the literature on such comparison with respect to serous body fluid examination is sparse. METHODS: One hundred samples of serous body fluids were processed by both CCP and LBC techniques. Slides prepared by these techniques were studied using six parameters. A comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the techniques in detection of malignant cells was carried out with appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: The samples comprised 52 pleural, 44 peritoneal and four pericardial fluids. No statistically significant difference was noted with respect to cellularity (P values = 0.22), cell distribution (P values = 0.39) and diagnosis of malignancy (P values = 0.20). As for the remaining parameters, LBC provided statistically significant clearer smear background (P values < 0.0001) and shorter screening time (P values < 0.0001), while CPP technique provided a significantly better staining quality (P values 0.01) and sharper cytomorphologic features (P values 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although, a reduced screening time and clearer smear background are the two major advantages of LBC; the CCP technique provides the better staining quality with sharper cytomorphologic features which is more critical from the cytologic interpretation point of view. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2016;44:874-879.
BACKGROUND: Clinically, detection of malignant cells in serous body fluids is critical, as their presence implies the upstaging of the disease. Cytology of body cavity fluids serves as an important tool when other diagnostic tests cannot be performed. In most laboratories, currently, the effusion fluid samples are analysed chiefly by the conventional cytopreparatory (CCP) technique. Although, there are several studies comparing the liquid-based cytology (LBC), with CCP technique in the field of cervicovaginal cytology; the literature on such comparison with respect to serous body fluid examination is sparse. METHODS: One hundred samples of serous body fluids were processed by both CCP and LBC techniques. Slides prepared by these techniques were studied using six parameters. A comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the techniques in detection of malignant cells was carried out with appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: The samples comprised 52 pleural, 44 peritoneal and four pericardial fluids. No statistically significant difference was noted with respect to cellularity (P values = 0.22), cell distribution (P values = 0.39) and diagnosis of malignancy (P values = 0.20). As for the remaining parameters, LBC provided statistically significant clearer smear background (P values < 0.0001) and shorter screening time (P values < 0.0001), while CPP technique provided a significantly better staining quality (P values 0.01) and sharper cytomorphologic features (P values 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although, a reduced screening time and clearer smear background are the two major advantages of LBC; the CCP technique provides the better staining quality with sharper cytomorphologic features which is more critical from the cytologic interpretation point of view. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2016;44:874-879.
Authors: Shaohua Wang; Dan Li; Jieqiong Wang; Yu Wan; Conggai Huang; Bo Yang; Xiaoqin Tang; Gang Tian; Zhihui Yang Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020 Jan-Dec