The Korean Journal of Cytopathology (대한세포병리학회지)

The Korean Society for Cytopathology (대한세포병리학회)
권호 표지

Cytologic Evaluation of $CellPrep^{(R)}$ Liquid-based Cytology in Cervicovaginal, Body Fluid, and Urine Specimens - Comparison with $ThinPrep^{(R)}$ -

자궁경부, 체액 및 소변의 탈락 세포진 검사에서 $CellPrep^{(R)}$ 액상세포검사의 세포학적 평가 -$ThinPrep^{(R)}$과 비교분석-

  • Cho, Soo-Yeon (Department of Pathology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, KIRAMS) ;
  • Ha, Hwa-Jeong (Department of Pathology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, KIRAMS) ;
  • Kim, Jung-Soon (Department of Pathology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, KIRAMS) ;
  • Shin, Myung-Soon (Department of Pathology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, KIRAMS) ;
  • Koh, Jae-Soo (Department of Pathology, Korea Cancer Center Hospital, KIRAMS)
  • Published : 2007.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study purposed to evaluate a $CellPrep^{(R)}$ (CP) of liquid-based cytology (LBC) to search for a less expensive and automated alternative cytologic preparation technique applicable to usually encountered cytologic specimens. Cervicovaginal direct-to-vial split samples from 457 gynecologic patients, 40 body fluid samples, and 34 urine samples were processed with the CP technique and the results were compared with those of currently used $ThinPrep^{(R)}$ (TP) method. Both CP and TP methods provide evenly distributed thin layers of cells with little cellular overlaps or significant obscuring elements in most of cases. Staining quality of both preparations showed a little difference due to the difference of fixative solutions without significant distractions in cytologic interpretation. On the supposition that TP was a gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CP cytology were 89%, 98%, 86%, and 99% in the cervicovaginal smear, 89%, 82%, 80%, and 90% in body fluid, and all of these values were 100% in urine samples. To testify the availability of immunohistochemistry on CP preparations, cytokeratin, vimentin, and Ki-67 were applied on body fluid specimens, and all of these antibodies were specifically stained on targeted cells. Conclusively, the CP method gave comparable results to those of TP in terms of smear quality and cytologic diagnostic evaluation, and was available on immunohistochemistry. The CP method could offer a cost-effective and automated alternative to the current expensive techniques of liquid-based cytology on popular cytologic materials including cervicovaginal, body fluid, and urine specimens.

Keywords

References

  1. Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:1-73
  2. Linder J. Recent advances in thin-layer cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:24-32 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199801)18:1<24::AID-DC5>3.0.CO;2-U
  3. Sahebali S, Depuydt CE, Segers K, et al. p16INK4a as an adjunct marker in liquid-based cervical cytology. Int J Cancer 2004;108:871-6 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.11589
  4. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:278-84 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00228-7
  5. Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:137-44 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00176-8
  6. Schledermann D, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B. Improvement of diagnostic accuracy and screening conditions with liquid-based cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:780-5 https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20515
  7. Lee KC, Choi HS, Kim HJ, et al. The Comparison of conventional Pap Smear with ThinPrep Pap Smear in detecting HSIL and cervix cancer. Korean J Obstet Gynecol 2002;45:753-8
  8. Kim YR, Kim YT, Kim SH, Kim JH, Kim JW, Park YW. Comparative analysis of conventional Papanicolaou smear, fluid-based thin-layer method and cervicography. Korean J Obstet Gynecol 2005;48:2932-40
  9. Park YW, Chung JH, Lee HM. A Comparison of the availability of the urine ThinPrep test and urine cytology in the diagnosis of bladder cancer. Korean J Urol 2003;44:734-8
  10. Ylagan LR, Zhai J. The value of ThinPrep and cytospin preparation in pleural effusion cytological diagnosis of mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:137-44 https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20200
  11. Gabriel C, Achten R, Drijkoningen M. Use of liquid-based cytology in serous fluids: a comparison with conventional cytopreparatory techniques. Acta Cytol 2004;48:825-35 https://doi.org/10.1159/000326453
  12. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-9 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.16.2114
  13. Jang J, Kim J, Cho KJ, Khang SK, Nam JH, Gong G. A comparison of AutoCyte PREP with matched conventional Smear in cervicovaginal cytology. Korean J Cytopathol 2002;13:8-13
  14. Park JM, Lee JG, Suh IS. Clinical efficacy of manual liquidbased cervicovaginal cytology preparation: Comparative study with conventional papanicolaou test. Korean J Cytopathol 2005;16:10-7
  15. Nam JH, Kim HS, Lee JS, Choi HS, Min KW, Park CS. A comparison of modified MonoPrep2 of liquid-based cytology with ThinPrep Pap test. Gynecol Oncol 2004;94:693-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.05.047
  16. Maksem JA, Dhanwada V, Trueblood JE, et al. Testing automated liquid-based cytology samples with a manual liquid-based cytology method using residual cell suspensions from 500 ThinPrep cases. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:391-6 https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20466
  17. Mullink H, Walboomers JM, Tadema TM, Jansen DJ, Meijer CJ. Combined immuno- and non-radioactive hybridocytochemistry on cells and tissue sections: influence of fixation, enzyme pre-treatment, and choice of chromogen on detection of antigen and DNA sequences. J Histochem Cytochem 1989;37:603-9 https://doi.org/10.1177/37.5.2467928