Browse > Article

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

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)
Publication Information
The Korean Journal of Cytopathology / v.18, no.1, 2007 , pp. 55-61 More about this Journal
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
Repeated urine cytology; Cytospin; ThinPrep; Cell paucity; Atypia;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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
2 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   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield: ThinPrep vs. Cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol 1994;38:33-6
4 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   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: non-gynaecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:368-71   DOI   ScienceOn
6 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
7 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
8 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   DOI
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 Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001;12:306-13   DOI   ScienceOn
11 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
12 Howell LP, DavisRL, Belk TI, Agdigos R, Lowe J. The autocyte preparation system for gynaecological cytology. Acta Cytol 1998;42:171-7   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Luthra UK, Dey P, George J et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: urine cytology evaluation. Diagnostic Cytopathol 1999;21:364-5   DOI   ScienceOn
14 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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
17 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