Davut Şahin1, Bahattin Çiçek2, İlkser Akpolat3, Gürhan Şişman4, Nilgün Tekkeşin5. 1. Department of Pathology-Cytopathology, Acıbadem Health Group, İstanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University, İstanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Pathology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University, İstanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University Atakent Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. 5. Department of Biochemistry, Memorial Şişli Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether pancreas cyst fluids should be divided into two for cytological diagnosis and biochemical tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was conducted with fluids aspirated from 12 pancreas cysts. The fluids were divided into two and sent to the cytopathology (fluid 1) and biochemistry (fluid 2) laboratories. Fluid 1 was centrifuged at the cytopathology laboratory. Cytology slides were prepared from the deposit, and the supernatant was sent to the biochemistry laboratory. Fluid 2 was centrifuged at the biochemistry laboratory, and amylase, carcinoembryonic antigen, and cancer antigen 19.9 levels were determined in the supernatant. These procedures were repeated for fluid 1 from the cytopathology laboratory. The remaining fluid 2 was sent to the cytopathology laboratory. Fluid 1-like slides were prepared from fluid 2 in the cytopathology laboratory. Cytological diagnoses of fluid 1 and fluid 2 were compared, and the Pearson correlation coefficient for biochemical test results was identified. RESULTS: 92% of fluid 1 and 50% of fluid 2 were diagnostic. Biochemical test results of fluid 1 and fluid 2 were similar, and the Pearson correlation coefficient was high. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that pancreatic cyst fluids did not need to be divided into two for cytological diagnosis and biochemical tests. Following centrifugation of the whole fluid at the cytopathology laboratory, the deposit and the supernatant can be used for cytological diagnosis and for biochemical tests, respectively. With this protocol, the sensitivity of cytological diagnoses and biochemical tests of pancreatic cyst fluids may increase.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether pancreas cyst fluids should be divided into two for cytological diagnosis and biochemical tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was conducted with fluids aspirated from 12 pancreas cysts. The fluids were divided into two and sent to the cytopathology (fluid 1) and biochemistry (fluid 2) laboratories. Fluid 1 was centrifuged at the cytopathology laboratory. Cytology slides were prepared from the deposit, and the supernatant was sent to the biochemistry laboratory. Fluid 2 was centrifuged at the biochemistry laboratory, and amylase, carcinoembryonic antigen, and cancer antigen 19.9 levels were determined in the supernatant. These procedures were repeated for fluid 1 from the cytopathology laboratory. The remaining fluid 2 was sent to the cytopathology laboratory. Fluid 1-like slides were prepared from fluid 2 in the cytopathology laboratory. Cytological diagnoses of fluid 1 and fluid 2 were compared, and the Pearson correlation coefficient for biochemical test results was identified. RESULTS: 92% of fluid 1 and 50% of fluid 2 were diagnostic. Biochemical test results of fluid 1 and fluid 2 were similar, and the Pearson correlation coefficient was high. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that pancreatic cyst fluids did not need to be divided into two for cytological diagnosis and biochemical tests. Following centrifugation of the whole fluid at the cytopathology laboratory, the deposit and the supernatant can be used for cytological diagnosis and for biochemical tests, respectively. With this protocol, the sensitivity of cytological diagnoses and biochemical tests of pancreatic cyst fluids may increase.
Authors: Siaw Ming Chai; Karl Herba; M Priyanthi Kumarasinghe; W Bastiaan de Boer; Benhur Amanuel; Fabienne Grieu-Iacopetta; Ee Mun Lim; Dev Segarajasingam; Ian Yusoff; Chris Choo; Felicity Frost Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Renata Talar-Wojnarowska; Marek Pazurek; Lukasz Durko; Malgorzata Degowska; Grazyna Rydzewska; Jacek Smigielski; Adam Janiak; Marek Olakowski; Paweł Lampe; Piotr Grzelak; Ludomir Stefanczyk; Ewa Malecka-Panas Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Thomas Kowalski; Ali Siddiqui; David Loren; Howard R Mertz; Damien Mallat; Nadim Haddad; Nidhi Malhotra; Brett Sadowski; Mark J Lybik; Sandeep N Patel; Emuejevoke Okoh; Laura Rosenkranz; Michael Karasik; Michael Golioto; Jeffrey Linder; Marc F Catalano; Mohammad A Al-Haddad Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 3.062