Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens

Tarik M. Elsheikh, Joseph L. Kirkpatrick, Howard Wu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND. There exists limited literature comparing ThinPrep (TP) with conventional cytospins (CS) in nongynecologic specimens. METHODS. The differences between TP and CS were evaluated for a variety of parameters including cellularity, cytologic morphology, specimen preparation, screening time, laboratory cost effectiveness, cytologist preference, and impact on final diagnosis. Eighty-eight cases including 38 urine, 13 respiratory, and 37 body fluids were prepared simultaneously. RESULTS. TP and CS demonstrated similar cellular yield in the majority of cases. Cytologists preferred TP in 63 (71.6%) and CS in 6 (6.8%) cases; whereas they indicated no preference in 19 (21.6%) cases. Of 14 abnormal cytologies, a more definitive diagnosis of malignancy was rendered by TP in 6 (42.9%) and by CS in 2 (14.3%) cases. TP demonstrated better nuclear chromatin morphology and more uniform distribution of cells. CS showed larger-sized clusters with better preservation of their architecture compared with smaller-sized clusters and significant shrinkage of cell size in TP. CONCLUSIONS. TP was preferred over CS in the majority of cases by both cytotechnologists and pathologists. Cellularity, screening time, and specimen preparation were comparable, although the latter was easier to standardize in TP. In abnormal cases, TP was found to be 3 times more helpful than CS in rendering a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. TP, however, was associated with certain artifacts that cytologists must become familiar with when examining such preparations. Although TP was superior to CS in most cases, the application of both methods may be helpful in selected cases in which the TP diagnosis is not conclusive. Finally, TP was found to be more cost effective than CS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)144-149
Number of pages6
JournalCancer
Volume108
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 25 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cell Biology
Body Fluids
Cell Size
Artifacts
Chromatin
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Neoplasms
Urine
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Cytospin
  • Exfoliative cytology
  • Fluids
  • Nongynecologic cytology
  • Respiratory
  • ThinPrep

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens. / Elsheikh, Tarik M.; Kirkpatrick, Joseph L.; Wu, Howard.

In: Cancer, Vol. 108, No. 3, 25.06.2006, p. 144-149.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Elsheikh, Tarik M. ; Kirkpatrick, Joseph L. ; Wu, Howard. / Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens. In: Cancer. 2006 ; Vol. 108, No. 3. pp. 144-149.
@article{d3934dc647114767b490741def6c8740,
title = "Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens",
abstract = "BACKGROUND. There exists limited literature comparing ThinPrep (TP) with conventional cytospins (CS) in nongynecologic specimens. METHODS. The differences between TP and CS were evaluated for a variety of parameters including cellularity, cytologic morphology, specimen preparation, screening time, laboratory cost effectiveness, cytologist preference, and impact on final diagnosis. Eighty-eight cases including 38 urine, 13 respiratory, and 37 body fluids were prepared simultaneously. RESULTS. TP and CS demonstrated similar cellular yield in the majority of cases. Cytologists preferred TP in 63 (71.6{\%}) and CS in 6 (6.8{\%}) cases; whereas they indicated no preference in 19 (21.6{\%}) cases. Of 14 abnormal cytologies, a more definitive diagnosis of malignancy was rendered by TP in 6 (42.9{\%}) and by CS in 2 (14.3{\%}) cases. TP demonstrated better nuclear chromatin morphology and more uniform distribution of cells. CS showed larger-sized clusters with better preservation of their architecture compared with smaller-sized clusters and significant shrinkage of cell size in TP. CONCLUSIONS. TP was preferred over CS in the majority of cases by both cytotechnologists and pathologists. Cellularity, screening time, and specimen preparation were comparable, although the latter was easier to standardize in TP. In abnormal cases, TP was found to be 3 times more helpful than CS in rendering a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. TP, however, was associated with certain artifacts that cytologists must become familiar with when examining such preparations. Although TP was superior to CS in most cases, the application of both methods may be helpful in selected cases in which the TP diagnosis is not conclusive. Finally, TP was found to be more cost effective than CS.",
keywords = "Cytospin, Exfoliative cytology, Fluids, Nongynecologic cytology, Respiratory, ThinPrep",
author = "Elsheikh, {Tarik M.} and Kirkpatrick, {Joseph L.} and Howard Wu",
year = "2006",
month = "6",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1002/cncr.21841",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "108",
pages = "144--149",
journal = "Cancer",
issn = "0008-543X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens

AU - Elsheikh, Tarik M.

AU - Kirkpatrick, Joseph L.

AU - Wu, Howard

PY - 2006/6/25

Y1 - 2006/6/25

N2 - BACKGROUND. There exists limited literature comparing ThinPrep (TP) with conventional cytospins (CS) in nongynecologic specimens. METHODS. The differences between TP and CS were evaluated for a variety of parameters including cellularity, cytologic morphology, specimen preparation, screening time, laboratory cost effectiveness, cytologist preference, and impact on final diagnosis. Eighty-eight cases including 38 urine, 13 respiratory, and 37 body fluids were prepared simultaneously. RESULTS. TP and CS demonstrated similar cellular yield in the majority of cases. Cytologists preferred TP in 63 (71.6%) and CS in 6 (6.8%) cases; whereas they indicated no preference in 19 (21.6%) cases. Of 14 abnormal cytologies, a more definitive diagnosis of malignancy was rendered by TP in 6 (42.9%) and by CS in 2 (14.3%) cases. TP demonstrated better nuclear chromatin morphology and more uniform distribution of cells. CS showed larger-sized clusters with better preservation of their architecture compared with smaller-sized clusters and significant shrinkage of cell size in TP. CONCLUSIONS. TP was preferred over CS in the majority of cases by both cytotechnologists and pathologists. Cellularity, screening time, and specimen preparation were comparable, although the latter was easier to standardize in TP. In abnormal cases, TP was found to be 3 times more helpful than CS in rendering a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. TP, however, was associated with certain artifacts that cytologists must become familiar with when examining such preparations. Although TP was superior to CS in most cases, the application of both methods may be helpful in selected cases in which the TP diagnosis is not conclusive. Finally, TP was found to be more cost effective than CS.

AB - BACKGROUND. There exists limited literature comparing ThinPrep (TP) with conventional cytospins (CS) in nongynecologic specimens. METHODS. The differences between TP and CS were evaluated for a variety of parameters including cellularity, cytologic morphology, specimen preparation, screening time, laboratory cost effectiveness, cytologist preference, and impact on final diagnosis. Eighty-eight cases including 38 urine, 13 respiratory, and 37 body fluids were prepared simultaneously. RESULTS. TP and CS demonstrated similar cellular yield in the majority of cases. Cytologists preferred TP in 63 (71.6%) and CS in 6 (6.8%) cases; whereas they indicated no preference in 19 (21.6%) cases. Of 14 abnormal cytologies, a more definitive diagnosis of malignancy was rendered by TP in 6 (42.9%) and by CS in 2 (14.3%) cases. TP demonstrated better nuclear chromatin morphology and more uniform distribution of cells. CS showed larger-sized clusters with better preservation of their architecture compared with smaller-sized clusters and significant shrinkage of cell size in TP. CONCLUSIONS. TP was preferred over CS in the majority of cases by both cytotechnologists and pathologists. Cellularity, screening time, and specimen preparation were comparable, although the latter was easier to standardize in TP. In abnormal cases, TP was found to be 3 times more helpful than CS in rendering a definitive diagnosis of malignancy. TP, however, was associated with certain artifacts that cytologists must become familiar with when examining such preparations. Although TP was superior to CS in most cases, the application of both methods may be helpful in selected cases in which the TP diagnosis is not conclusive. Finally, TP was found to be more cost effective than CS.

KW - Cytospin

KW - Exfoliative cytology

KW - Fluids

KW - Nongynecologic cytology

KW - Respiratory

KW - ThinPrep

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745221698&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745221698&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/cncr.21841

DO - 10.1002/cncr.21841

M3 - Article

C2 - 16550571

AN - SCOPUS:33745221698

VL - 108

SP - 144

EP - 149

JO - Cancer

JF - Cancer

SN - 0008-543X

IS - 3

ER -