Comparison between cytocentrifugation techniques and liquid-based SurePathTM for the processing of non-gynaecological specimens: validation check
Keywords:
Cytology techniques, Validation studies, Non-gynaecological specimensAbstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the routine use of liquid based cytology for non-gynecologic specimens in our laboratory, comparing morphological characteristics and diagnostic agreement between the two techniques: conventional cytology cytospin, and SurePath liquid-based cytology.
Study design: A total of 109 consecutive non-gynecologic specimens were processed, split into two, and then prepared using the two techniques. All slides were reviewed by the same cytopathologist, who evaluated: cellularity, preservation, obscuring elements (inflammation, bleeding, mucus, etc.), and presence of diagnostic groups for each final diagnostic category. When available, an evaluation of the biopsy was performed retrospectively.
Results: Good agreement was observed by diagnostic category in 84% of specimens, with a good Kappa index (0.65). The proportion for each category: negative, atypical, and positive was 69%, 18%, and 11%, respectively, for cases processed by liquid-based cytology and 83%, 7%, and 9%, respectively, for conventional cytology cytospin.
Conclusion: Liquid based cytology is equivalent to conventional cytology cytospin when cases are grouped by category (good agreement, kappa index 0.651), and is superior in quality because the specimen is well preserved, has a clean background and fewer obscuring elements allowing a better morphological examination.
Author Biographies
Luis Eduardo Barrera-Herrera, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá
Departamento de Patología y Laboratorio, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá D. C., Colombia
Yubelly Abello, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá
Departamento de Patología y Laboratorio, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá D. C., Colombia
Nathalie Ruiz, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá
Departamento de Patología y Laboratorio, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá D. C., Colombia
Paula Andrea Rodríguez-Urrego, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá
Departamento de Patología y Laboratorio, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá D. C., Colombia
References
Stabile SAB, Evangelista DHR, Talamonte VH, Lippi UG, Lopes RGC. Comparative study of the results from conventional cervico-vaginal oncotic cytology and liquid-based cytology. Einstein São Paulo Braz. 2012;10:466-72.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-45082012000400013
Birdsong G, Davey D, Darraugh T, Elgert P, Henry M. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology. 2 nd ed. New York: Springer; 2004.
Cox JT. ASCCP practice guidelines: management issues related to quality of the smear. 997;1:100-106 p.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00128360-199704000-00024
Guo M, Hu L, Martin L, Liu S, Baliga M, Hughson MD. Accuracy of liquid-based Pap tests: comparison of concurrent liquid-based tests and cervical biopsies on 782 women with previously abnormal Pap smears. Acta Cytol. 2005;49:132-8.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000326120
Michael CW, McConnel J, Pecott J, Afify AM, Al-Khafaji B. Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: a pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol.2001;25:177-84.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.2033
Sass MA. Use of a liquid-based, thin-layer Pap test in a community hospital. Impact on cytology performance and productivity. Acta Cytol. 2004;48:17-22.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000326278
Nance KV. Evolution of Pap testing at a community hospital: aten year experience. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:148-53.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20607
Geers C, Bourgain C. Liquid-based FNAC of the thyroid: a 4-year survey with SurePath. Cancer Cytopathol. 2011;119: 58-67.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.20125
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. User Verification of Performance for Precision and Trueness; Approved Guideline-Second Edition. CLSI document EP15-A2. Wayne, Pennsylvania USA, Vol.17, 2005.
Viera A, Garrett J. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37:360-3.
Laucirica R, Bentz JS, Souers RJ, Wasserman PG, Crothers BA, Clayton AC, et al. Do liquid-based preparations of urinary cytology perform differently than classically prepared cases? Observations from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:19-22.
Lu DY, Nassar A, Siddiqui MT. High-grade urothelial carcinoma: comparison of SurePath liquid-based processing with cytospin processing. Diagn Cytopathol. 2009;37:16-20.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20957
Hoda RS. Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: A morphologic review of facts and artifacts. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:621-34.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20698
Studeman KD, Ioffe OB, Puszkiewicz J, Sauvegeot J, Henry MR. Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of detecting squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:605-10.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000326576
Grace A, McBrearty P, Troost S, Thornhill M, Kay E, Leader M. Comparative study: conventional cervical and ThinPrep Pap tests in a routine clinical setting. Cytopathol Off J Br Soc Clin Cytol. 2002;13:200-5.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2303.2002.00403.x
Fontaine D, Narine N, Naugler C. Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e000847.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000847
Rana DN, O'Donnell M, Malkin A, Griffin M. A comparative study: conventional preparation and ThinPrep 2000 in respiratory cytology. Cytopathol Off J Br Soc Clin Cytol. 2001;12:390-8.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2303.2001.00351.x
Liu C, Wen Z, Li Y, Peng L. Application of ThinPrep bronchial brushing cytology in the early diagnosis of lung cancer: a retrospective study. PloS One. 2014;9:e90163.
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Todos los derechos reservados.
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
