| Literature DB >> 35928534 |
Poovizhi Inbasekaran1, Ramaswamy Anikode Subramanian2.
Abstract
Objectives: Fluids are one the most common specimens received in cytology laboratories. The presence of erythrocytes may obscure the cells in the smears, making the diagnosis, and identification of cells difficult. Many techniques are being used by laboratories to eliminate these erythrocytes. The present study was undertaken to improve the quality of cytology smears of hemorrhagic samples by comparing three different techniques, namely, Carnoy's fixative (CF), modified CF, and normal saline rehydration technique (NSRT) to hemolysis red blood cells (RBC) present in the smear background for better cytological assessment. The present study was a prospective study done over 1 year 6 months from November 2012 to March 2014, in the Department of Pathology in a Tertiary Care Rural Medical College. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Carnoy’s fixative; Hemorrhagic effusion; Normal saline rehydration technique
Year: 2022 PMID: 35928534 PMCID: PMC9345103 DOI: 10.25259/Cytojournal_14_2021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cytojournal ISSN: 1742-6413 Impact factor: 2.345
Figure 1:(a) Reactive mesothelial cells in hemorrhagic effusion treated with MCF ×40 (Pap) (b) Reactive mesothelial cells in hemorrhagic effusion treated with MCF ×40 (H&E).
Figure 2:(a) Reactive mesothelial cells in hemorrhagic effusion treated with CF ×40 (Pap). (b) Reactive mesothelial cells in hemorrhagic effusion treated with CF ×40 (H&E).
Figure 3:(a) Reactive mesothelial cells in hemorrhagic effusion treated with NSRT ×40 (Pap). (b) Reactive mesothelial cells of hemorrhagic effusion treated with NSRT ×40 (H&E).
Effect of reduction of RBCs on smear background.
| Technique used | >60% reduction | 30–60% reduction | <30% reduction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSRT | 82 | 12 | 2 | <0.001 |
| MCF | 14 | 70 | 12 | |
| CF | 15 | 69 | 12 |
Effect on staining.
| Technique | Stain | No effect | Focal changes but not affecting diagnosis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of cases | % | No. of cases | % | ||
| CF | Pap | 47 | 49 | 49 | 51 |
| H&E | 45 | 46.9 | 51 | 53.1 | |
| MCF | Pap | 47 | 49 | 49 | 51 |
| H&E | 46 | 47.9 | 50 | 52.1 | |
| NSRT | Pap | 54 | 56.8 | 42 | 43.2 |
| H&E | 56 | 58.3 | 40 | 41.7 | |
Effect on nuclear chromatin.
| Technique | Stain | No | Yes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of cases | % | No. of cases | % | ||
| CF | Pap | 93 | 96.9 | 3 | 3.1 |
| H&E | 89 | 92.7 | 7 | 7.3 | |
| MCF | Pap | 93 | 96.9 | 3 | 3.1 |
| H&E | 93 | 96.9 | 3 | 3.1 | |
| SRT | Pap | 93 | 96.9 | 3 | 3.1 |
| H&E | 92 | 95.8 | 4 | 4.2 | |
Effect on cell borders.
| Technique | Stain | Preserved | Disrupted | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of cases | % | No. of cases | % | ||
| CF | Pap | 83 | 86.5 | 13 | 13.5 |
| H&E | 83 | 86.5 | 13 | 13.5 | |
| MCF | Pap | 87 | 90.6 | 9 | 9.4 |
| H&E | 82 | 85.4 | 14 | 14.6 | |
| NSRT | Pap | 87 | 90.6 | 9 | 9.4 |
| H&E | 86 | 89.6 | 10 | 10.4 | |
Effect on cytoplasmic staining.
| Technique | Stain | Under stained | Unaffected | Over stained | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of cases | % | No. of cases | % | No. of cases | % | ||
| CF | Pap | 7 | 7.3 | 83 | 86.5 | 6 | 6.2 |
| H&E | 8 | 8.3 | 79 | 82.3 | 9 | 9.4 | |
| MCF | Pap | 6 | 6.2 | 84 | 87.5 | 6 | 6.2 |
| H&E | 6 | 6.2 | 78 | 81.2 | 12 | 12.5 | |
| SRT | Pap | 6 | 6.2 | 89 | 92.7 | 1 | 1.1 |
| H&E | 7 | 7.3 | 87 | 90.6 | 2 | 2.1 | |
Effect on special features.
| Technique | Stain | Preserved | Obscured | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of cases | % | No. of cases | % | ||
| CF | Pap | 94 | 97.9 | 2 | 2.1 |
| H&E | 94 | 97.9 | 2 | 2.1 | |
| MCF | Pap | 94 | 97.9 | 2 | 2 |
| H&E | 95 | 99 | 1 | 1 | |
| SRT | Pap | 96 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| H&E | 96 | 100 | 0 | 0 | |
Comparative table for reduction of RBC in the background.
| Malvi and Anthony, 2000[ | Shabnam, 2013[ | Jaiwong | Preeti 2011[ | Weidmann, 1997[ | Kirib, 2006[ | Shamsi 2007[ | Mirzaie | Present study 2014 (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GAA | 10 | 3.9 | 53.33 | ||||||
| CF | 20 | 60.8 | 82 | 51.7 | 15.6 | ||||
| NSRT | 93 | 72.5 | 96.5 | 91.33 | 94 | 85.4 | |||
| MCF | 14.6 | ||||||||
| 95% ethane | 86 | 0 | 70.9 | ||||||
| Cytorich red | 92.5 | ||||||||
| Cytospin | 22.5 | ||||||||
| Filtration | 88 |
Comparative table for effect on nuclear chromatin.
| Technique | Malvi and Anthony, 2000[ | Jaiwong, 2006[ | Gupta | Dahlstrom | Present study 2014 (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H&E | Pap | ||||||
| Crisp | GAA | 26.93 | |||||
| CF | 32 | 92.7 | 96.9 | ||||
| NSRT | 92.86 | 87.9 | 71.7 | 25 | 95.8 | 96.9 | |
| MCF | 96.9 | 96.9 | |||||
| 95% alcohol | 96.51 | 73.6 | 27 | ||||
| Satisfactory | 95% alcohol | 63 | |||||
| NSRT | 29 | ||||||
| zHazy | GAA | 73.07 | |||||
| CF | 68 | 7.3 | 3.1 | ||||
| NSRT | 7.14 | 12.20 | 28.3 | 33 | 4.2 | 3.1 | |
| MCF | 3.1 | 3.1 | |||||
| 95% alcohol | 3.48 | 26.4 | 0 | ||||
Comparative table for cell border preservation.
| Technique | Jaiwong | Gupta | Dahlstrom | Present study 2014 (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H&E | Pap | |||||
| Preserved | CF | 86.5 | 86.5 | |||
| NSRT | 75.58 | 81.8 | 20 | 89.6 | 90.6 | |
| MCF | 85.4 | 90.6 | ||||
| 95% alcohol | 80.23 | 83.1 | 3.7 | |||
| Satisfactory | 95% alcohol | 54 | ||||
| NSRT | 36 | |||||
| Disrupted | CF | 13.5 | 13.5 | |||
| NSRT | 24.41 | 18.2 | 31 | 10.4 | 9.4 | |
| MCF | 14.6 | 9.4 | ||||
| 95% alcohol | 19.76 | 16.9 | 33 | |||
Comparative results for cytoplasmic staining.
| Technique | Weidmann, 1997[ | Jaiwong | Gupta | Present study 2014 (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H&E | Pap | |||||
| Unaffected | CF | 82.3 | 86.5 | |||
| NSRT | 98.83 | 87.8 | 90.6 | 92.7 | ||
| MCF | 81.2 | 87.5 | ||||
| 95% alcohol | 95.34 | 79 | ||||
| Cytorichred | 97 | |||||
| Cytospin | 48 | |||||
| Affected | CF | 17.7 | 13.5 | |||
| NSRT | 1.16 | 12.2 | 9.4 | 7.3 | ||
| MCF | 18.7 | 12.4 | ||||
| 95% alcohol | 4.65 | 21 | ||||
| Cytorichred | 3 | |||||
| Cytospin | 52 | |||||
Figure 4:(a) Metastatic adenocarcinoma detected in hemorrhagic effusion treated with MCF ×40 (Pap). (b) Metastatic adenocarcinoma detected in hemorrhagic effusion treated with MCF ×40 (H&E).
Figure 6:(a) Metastatic adenocarcinoma detected in hemorrhagic effusion treated with NSRT ×40 (Pap). (b) Metastatic adenocarcinoma detected in hemorrhagic effusion treated with NSRT ×40 (H&E).
Figure 7:Candida pseudohyphal form detected in hemorrhagic ascitic fluid. PAS stain ×40.