The Korean Journal of Cytopathology (대한세포병리학회지)

The Korean Society for Cytopathology (대한세포병리학회)
권호 표지

Comparision of Effectiveness between the $ThinPrep^{(R)}$ and the Cytospin Preparations of the Repeated Urine Cytology

소변검사의 재검 시 세포원심분리법과 액상세포검사 $ThinPrep^{(R)}$의 효율성에 관한 비교

  • Kim, Hyun-Kyung (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital) ;
  • Pyo, Ju-Yeon (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Yoon-Hee (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital) ;
  • Jung, Woo-Hee (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Se-Hoon (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital) ;
  • Hong, Soon-Won (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital)
  • 김현경 (연세대학교 의과대학 영동세브란스병원 진단병리과) ;
  • 표주연 (연세대학교 의과대학 영동세브란스병원 진단병리과) ;
  • 이윤희 (연세대학교 의과대학 영동세브란스병원 진단병리과) ;
  • 정우희 (연세대학교 의과대학 영동세브란스병원 진단병리과) ;
  • 김세훈 (연세대학교 의과대학 영동세브란스병원 진단병리과) ;
  • 홍순원 (연세대학교 의과대학 영동세브란스병원 진단병리과)
  • Published : 2007.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Once diagnosed as "cell paucity"or "atypia" by the cytospin (CS) preparation, this CS preparation does not secure a precise diagnosis by repeated testing alone. Although the ThinPrep (TP) preparation is acknowledged to show increased cellularity, performing the screening tests for the cases that have enough cellularity, according to CS, raises issues for the cost-effectiveness. To obtain a more precise diagnosis through increasing the cellularity by performing TP, we selected the cases that were diagnosed as "cell paucity" or "atypia" by CS, but they required a more precise diagnosis, and the samples were processed via both CS and TP to compare the results. 11 patients diagnosed as "cell paucity" and 22 patients diagnosed as "atypia" by CS participated in this study. When the detection rate of atypical cells in both preparations with repeated urine cytology was compared, the overall detection rate of TP (16cases, 48.5%) was superior than that of CS (11cases, 33.3%), with statistical significance. The cellularity of both preparations was compared on repeated urine cytology; the general cellularity of TP (29cases, 87.9%) was higher than that of CS (20cases, 60.6%), but there was no statistical significance. Particularly, we repeated the TP for the 1 case that was diagnosed as "atypia" and we performed polyoma virus immunohistochemical staining, which confirmed polyoma virus. In conclusion, we can avoid obtaining negative diagnosis from cases with uncertain "atypia" or "cell paucity" by performing repeated TP testing.

Keywords

References

  1. Barrett DL, King EB. Comparison of cellular recovery rates and morphological detail obtained using membrane filter and cytocentrifuge techniques. Acta Cytol 1976;20:174-80
  2. Marwah S, Devlin D, Dekker A. A comparative cytologic study of 100 urine specimens processed by the slide centrifuge and membrane filter techniques. Acta Cytol 1978;22:431-4
  3. Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S et al. ThinPrep processor. Clinical trial demonstrates an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytology specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:209-14 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/101.2.209
  4. Howell LP, DavisRL, Belk TI, Agdigos R, Lowe J. The autocyte preparation system for gynaecological cytology. Acta Cytol 1998;42:171-7 https://doi.org/10.1159/000331542
  5. Biscotti CV, Shorie JH, Gramlich TL, Easley KA. ThinPrep vs conventional smear cytologic preparations in analyzing fine-needle aspiration specimens from palpable breast masses. Diagn Cytopathol 1999 21:137-41 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199908)21:2<137::AID-DC11>3.0.CO;2-O
  6. Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: non-gynaecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:368-71 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199704)16:4<368::AID-DC14>3.0.CO;2-I
  7. Nicol TL, Kelly D, Reynolds L, Rosenthal DL. Comparison of TriPath thinlayer technology with conventional methods of nongynaecologic specimens. Acta Cytol 2000;44:567-75 https://doi.org/10.1159/000328531
  8. Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield: ThinPrep vs. Cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol 1994;38:33-6
  9. Beech DP, Allbee A, Atanaso PE, Moore TL, Bell DA. A comparison of voided urine samples processed by the Cytyc ThinPrep Processor and the Shandon Cyto-Spin II (poster abstract). Acta Cytol 1992;36:583
  10. Luthra UK, Dey P, George J et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: urine cytology evaluation. Diagnostic Cytopathol 1999;21:364-5 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199911)21:5<364::AID-DC16>3.0.CO;2-4
  11. Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001;12:306-13 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2303.2001.00341.x
  12. Ha HJ, Kim JS, Shin MS, Jung JH, Koh JS, Cho KJ. Comparison of cytologic smear with ThinPrep and conventional method. Korean J Cytopathol Abstract 1999;1:15
  13. Park YW, Chung JH, Lee HM. A Comparison of the availability of the urine ThinPrep(R)test and urine cytology in the diagnosis of bladder cancer. Korean J Urol 2003;44:734-8
  14. Choi YD, Shim MK, Lee KH, Choi C, Park CS, Nam JH. The effectiveness of ThinPrep method in urine cytology. Korean J Cytopathol Abstract 2005;2:29
  15. Nassar H, Ali-Fehmi R, Madan S. Use of ThinPrep monolayer technique and cytospin preparation in urine cytology: a comparative analysis. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:115-8 https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.10245
  16. Piaton E, Faynel J, Ruffion A, Lopez JG, Perrin P, Devonec M. p53 immunodetection of liquid-based processed urinary samples helps to identify bladder tumours with a higher risk of progression. Br J Cancer 2005;93:242-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602684
  17. Bollmann M, Heller H, Bankfalvi A, Griefingholt H, Bollmann R. Quantitative molecular urinary cytology by fluorescence in situ hybridization: a tool for tailoring surveillance of patients with superficial bladder cancer? BJU Int. 2005;95:1219-25 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05509.x