D F Fischler1, S M Toddy. 1. Department of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Ohio 44195, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of the ThinPrep Processor (TP) for nongynecologic cytology. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed the number of unsatisfactory specimens from the esophagus, common bile duct, hepatic duct, pancreas, gastric, bronchial wang, vertebra, submandibular area and neck over a one-year period, before and after TP implementation. For a one-year period after TP implementation, the cytologic diagnoses of selected TP specimens with corresponding surgical tissue diagnoses were compared, and the TP slides were reviewed in discrepant cases. RESULTS: The number of unsatisfactory specimens was reduced from 17% to 1% after TP implementations. The cytologic diagnoses of 145 TP specimens were in agreement with surgical tissue diagnoses. However, in 43 cases the cytology and tissue diagnoses were discordant. On review of 26 of the discrepant cases, the majority of TP slides were cellular, with good nuclear and cytoplasmic detail. Discrepancies resulted from sampling errors in 19 cases and TP interpretation errors in 7 cases. CONCLUSION: In our laboratory, TP is a reliable processor for nongynecologic specimens.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of the ThinPrep Processor (TP) for nongynecologic cytology. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed the number of unsatisfactory specimens from the esophagus, common bile duct, hepatic duct, pancreas, gastric, bronchial wang, vertebra, submandibular area and neck over a one-year period, before and after TP implementation. For a one-year period after TP implementation, the cytologic diagnoses of selected TP specimens with corresponding surgical tissue diagnoses were compared, and the TP slides were reviewed in discrepant cases. RESULTS: The number of unsatisfactory specimens was reduced from 17% to 1% after TP implementations. The cytologic diagnoses of 145 TP specimens were in agreement with surgical tissue diagnoses. However, in 43 cases the cytology and tissue diagnoses were discordant. On review of 26 of the discrepant cases, the majority of TP slides were cellular, with good nuclear and cytoplasmic detail. Discrepancies resulted from sampling errors in 19 cases and TP interpretation errors in 7 cases. CONCLUSION: In our laboratory, TP is a reliable processor for nongynecologic specimens.