OBJECTIVE: To test the ThinPrep Processor for fine needle aspiration. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred unfixed, surgically removed specimens were aspirated. One pass was directly smeared, fixed and stained with the Papanicolaou technique. The other pass was rinsed in a proprietary fixative, and a single ThinPrep slide was made. Smears were diagnosed without knowledge of the histologic diagnosis. RESULTS: Cellularity and architectural integrity of cell groups were superior on the conventional slides. Preservation and detail of both epithelial and stromal cells were superior with the ThinPrep Processor. Preservation of background material, such as mucus and colloid, was slightly superior on the ThinPrep slides. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for malignancy and unsatisfactory rates were all slightly better on the ThinPrep slides. CONCLUSION: The ThinPrep Processor offers an alternative to direct smears in situations in which expertise in slide preparation is not available.
OBJECTIVE: To test the ThinPrep Processor for fine needle aspiration. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred unfixed, surgically removed specimens were aspirated. One pass was directly smeared, fixed and stained with the Papanicolaou technique. The other pass was rinsed in a proprietary fixative, and a single ThinPrep slide was made. Smears were diagnosed without knowledge of the histologic diagnosis. RESULTS: Cellularity and architectural integrity of cell groups were superior on the conventional slides. Preservation and detail of both epithelial and stromal cells were superior with the ThinPrep Processor. Preservation of background material, such as mucus and colloid, was slightly superior on the ThinPrep slides. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for malignancy and unsatisfactory rates were all slightly better on the ThinPrep slides. CONCLUSION: The ThinPrep Processor offers an alternative to direct smears in situations in which expertise in slide preparation is not available.
Authors: R G Gheri; E Romoli; V Vezzosi; B Ragghianti; S Bianchi; S Pedercini; F Dainelli; R Panconesi Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: A Cavaliere; R Colella; E Puxeddu; G Gambelunghe; N Avenia; M d'Ajello; F Cartaginese; R Vitali; G Bellezza; M Giansanti; A Sidoni; P De Feo Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.256