Browse > Article

A Comparison of Conventional Cytology and ThinPrep Cytology of Bronchial Washing Fluid in the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer  

Kim, Sang-Hoon (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Pochon CHA University)
Kim, Eun Kyung (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Pochon CHA University)
Shi, Kyeh-Dong (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Pochon CHA University)
Kim, Jung-Hyun (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Pochon CHA University)
Kim, Kyung Soo (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Pochon CHA University)
Yoo, Jeong-Hwan (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Pochon CHA University)
Kim, Joo-Young (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Pochon CHA University)
Kim, Gwang-Il (Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Pochon CHA University)
Ahn, Hee-Jung (Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, Pochon CHA University)
Lee, Ji-Hyun (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Pochon CHA University)
Publication Information
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases / v.62, no.6, 2007 , pp. 523-530 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: A ThinPrep$^{(R)}$ Processor was developed to overcome the limitations of conventional cytology and is widely used to diagnose various cancers. This study compared the diagnostic efficacy of conventional cytology for lung cancer with that of the ThinPrep$^{(R)}$ cytology using the bronchial washing fluid. Methods: The bronchial washing fluid of 790 patients from Jan. 2002 to Dec. 2006, who were suspected of gaving a lung malignancy, was evaluated. Both ThinPrep$^{(R)}$ and conventional cytology were performed for all specimens. Result: Four hundred forty-six men and 344 women were enrolled in this study, and 197 of them were diagnosed with cancer from either a bronchoscopic biopsy or a percutaneous needle aspiration biopsy. ThinPrep$^{(R)}$ cytology showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and false negative error rate of 71.1%, 98.0%, 92.1%, 91.1%, 8.9%, respectively. The conventional cytology showed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, nagative predictive value and false negative error rate of 57.9%, 98.0%, 90.5%, 87.5%, 12.5%, respectively. For central lesions, the sensitivity of conventional cytology and ThinPrep$^{(R)}$ were 70.1% and 82.8%, respectively. Conclusion: ThinPrep$^{(R)}$ cytology showed a higher sensitivity and lower false negative error rate than conventional cytology. This result was unaffected by the histological classification of lung cancer. Therefore, ThinPrep$^{(R)}$ cytology appears to be a useful method for increasing the detection rate of lung cancer in bronchial washing cytology test.
Keywords
Lung cancer; Bronchial washing; ThinPrep; Conventional cytology;
Citations & Related Records

Times Cited By SCOPUS : 0
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Hees K, Lobeau PB, Comparison of conventional and ThinPrep preparations of mucoid cytclogy samples. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;12:181-5   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Michael CW, Hunter B. Interpretation of fine-needle aspirates processed by the ThinPrep technique: cytologic artifacts diagnostic pitfalls, Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:6-13   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Rana DN, O'Donnell M, Malkin A, Grifljn M. A comparative study: conventional preparation and ThinPrep 2000 in respiratory cytology, Cytopathology 2001;12:390-8   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: non-gynecologic evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:368-71   DOI
5 Brambilla E, Travis WD, Colby TV, Corrin B, Shimosato Y. The new World Health Organization classification of lung tumours, Eur Respir J 2001; 18:1059-68   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield. ThinPrep vs. cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol 1994;38:33-6
7 Schreiber G, McCrory DC, Performance characteristics of different modalities for diagnosis of suspected lung cancer. Chest 2003;123;115S-28S   DOI
8 Lee JH, Yang JK, Jung IB, Sul HJ, Kim YM, Kim BK et al. Comparison of Thinprep (liquid-based cytology) and conventional cytology: abnormal lesion on bronchoscopy. Tuberc Respir Dis 2006;61:547-53   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Kish JK, Vallera DU, Ruby Sc. Comparative study of nongynecologic processing by ThinPrep vs. conventional methodology: rationale for the use of ThinPrep( Abstract). Acta Cytol 1993;37;801
10 Leung SW, Bedard YC. Immunocytochemical staining on ThinPrep processed smears. Mod Pathol 1996;9: 304-6
11 Linder J. Recent advances in thin-layer Cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:24-32   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Hoerl HD, Schink J, Hartenbach E, Wagner JL, Kurtycz DF. Exfoliative Cytology of primary poorly differentiated (small-cell) neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Thin-Prep material: a case report, Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:14-8   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Lee CT. Epidemiology of lung cancer in Korea. Cancer Res Treat 2002;34:3-5   DOI
14 Cytyc Corporation. Operator's manual: Thin-Prep Processor. Marlborough, MA: Cytyc Corporation; 1993
15 Fontana RS, Sanderson DR, Woolner LB, Taylor WF, Miller WE, Muhm JR. Lung cancer screening: the Mayo program. J Occup Med 1986;28:746-50   DOI
16 Tockman MS. Survival and mortality from lung cancer in a screened population, The Johns Hopkins Study, Chest 1986;89:324-5   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Davenport RD, Diagnostic value of crush artifact in cytologic specimens, Occurrence in small cell carcinoma of the lung, Acta Cytol 1990;34:502-4
18 Fischler DF, Toddy SM. Nongynecologic cytology utilizing the ThinPrep Processor. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:669-75   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Kurtycz DF, Hoerl HD, Thin-layer technology: tempered enthusiasm. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:1-5   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA. Cancer J Clin 2007; 57:43-66   DOI   ScienceOn