Conventional versus liquid-based cytology: “Man versus machine”

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Journal of Cytology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4103/joc.joc_54_23
Saleem Pathuthara, Swati Dighe, Maya Uke, Neelam Prabhudesai, Kedar Deodhar, SangeetaB Desai
{"title":"Conventional versus liquid-based cytology: “Man versus machine”","authors":"Saleem Pathuthara, Swati Dighe, Maya Uke, Neelam Prabhudesai, Kedar Deodhar, SangeetaB Desai","doi":"10.4103/joc.joc_54_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) can improve adequacy, monolayer quality with a clean background compared to conventional smears (CS). Aims and Objectives: The objective was to compare the quality and diagnostic yield of CS and LBC in routine cytological investigations. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study consisted of 306 samples (255 gynecological, 39 nongynecological, and 12 fine needle aspiration cytology [FNAC]) during a 2-year period (2019–2020). From each patient, two samples were collected in the same manner in the same sitting and processed by CS and LBC (ThinPrep® 2000, Hologic Inc.). Both CS and LBC were compared for adequacy, quality, representativeness, inflammation, hemorrhage, necrosis, preservation, reactive changes, organisms, atypia/dysplasia/malignancy, and preparation/screening time. Statistical analysis was performed. Results: No statistically significant difference was noted for adequacy, representativeness, reactive changes, preservation, and atypia/dysplasia/malignancy. CS was better in cellularity and diagnosis of inflammation and organisms, whereas LBC had a clean background and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0005). Conclusions: CS was equivalent to LBC in adequacy, representativeness, reactive changes, and atypia/dysplasia/malignancy. Adequacy comparable to LBC can be achieved in CS by careful sample collection, processing, and screening by trained cytotechnologists. CS was better in detecting organisms and inflammation than LBC. The advantages of LBC were monolayer smear, clean background, and lesser screening time, but the demerit was higher cost and longer processing time. Therefore, LBC is best suited to those laboratories having high sample inadequacy rates, lack of competent cytotechnologists, and no financial constraints. Either man or machine, appropriate and adequate sample collection by trained personnel forms the cornerstone for ensuring adequacy in both CS and LBC.","PeriodicalId":50217,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cytology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cytology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joc.joc_54_23","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) can improve adequacy, monolayer quality with a clean background compared to conventional smears (CS). Aims and Objectives: The objective was to compare the quality and diagnostic yield of CS and LBC in routine cytological investigations. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study consisted of 306 samples (255 gynecological, 39 nongynecological, and 12 fine needle aspiration cytology [FNAC]) during a 2-year period (2019–2020). From each patient, two samples were collected in the same manner in the same sitting and processed by CS and LBC (ThinPrep® 2000, Hologic Inc.). Both CS and LBC were compared for adequacy, quality, representativeness, inflammation, hemorrhage, necrosis, preservation, reactive changes, organisms, atypia/dysplasia/malignancy, and preparation/screening time. Statistical analysis was performed. Results: No statistically significant difference was noted for adequacy, representativeness, reactive changes, preservation, and atypia/dysplasia/malignancy. CS was better in cellularity and diagnosis of inflammation and organisms, whereas LBC had a clean background and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0005). Conclusions: CS was equivalent to LBC in adequacy, representativeness, reactive changes, and atypia/dysplasia/malignancy. Adequacy comparable to LBC can be achieved in CS by careful sample collection, processing, and screening by trained cytotechnologists. CS was better in detecting organisms and inflammation than LBC. The advantages of LBC were monolayer smear, clean background, and lesser screening time, but the demerit was higher cost and longer processing time. Therefore, LBC is best suited to those laboratories having high sample inadequacy rates, lack of competent cytotechnologists, and no financial constraints. Either man or machine, appropriate and adequate sample collection by trained personnel forms the cornerstone for ensuring adequacy in both CS and LBC.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
传统细胞学与液体细胞学:“人与机器”
背景:与传统涂片(CS)相比,液体细胞学(LBC)在干净的背景下可以提高充分性,单层质量。目的和目的:目的是比较常规细胞学检查CS和LBC的质量和诊断率。材料与方法:本回顾性研究包括306例样本(妇科255例,非妇科39例,细针抽吸细胞学[FNAC] 12例),为期2年(2019-2020年)。从每位患者中,以相同的坐姿以相同的方式收集两份样本,并由CS和LBC (ThinPrep®2000,Hologic Inc.)处理。CS和LBC在充分性、质量、代表性、炎症、出血、坏死、保存、反应性变化、生物体、异型/不典型增生/恶性肿瘤、准备/筛查时间等方面进行比较。进行统计学分析。结果:在充分性、代表性、反应性改变、保存、异型/不典型增生/恶性肿瘤方面,无统计学差异。CS在细胞结构、炎症和生物诊断方面优于LBC,而LBC背景干净,差异有统计学意义(P = 0.0005)。结论:CS与LBC在充分性、代表性、反应性改变、异型/不典型增生/恶性等方面相当。通过训练有素的细胞技术人员仔细收集、处理和筛选,CS可达到与LBC相当的充分性。CS在检测微生物和炎症方面优于LBC。LBC的优点是单层涂片,背景干净,筛选时间短,但缺点是成本高,处理时间长。因此,LBC最适合那些样品缺乏率高、缺乏合格的细胞技术人员和没有资金限制的实验室。无论是人工还是机器,由训练有素的人员进行适当和充分的样品采集是确保CS和LBC充分的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cytology
Journal of Cytology MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
34
审稿时长
46 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cytology is the official Quarterly publication of the Indian Academy of Cytologists. It is in the 25th year of publication in the year 2008. The journal covers all aspects of diagnostic cytology, including fine needle aspiration cytology, gynecological and non-gynecological cytology. Articles on ancillary techniques, like cytochemistry, immunocytochemistry, electron microscopy, molecular cytopathology, as applied to cytological material are also welcome. The journal gives preference to clinically oriented studies over experimental and animal studies. The Journal would publish peer-reviewed original research papers, case reports, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and debates.
期刊最新文献
Utility of Image Morphometry in the Atypical Urothelial Cells and High-Grade Urothelial Carcinoma Categories of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology Aptima HPV Genotypes in Abnormal Cervical Samples in Different Age Groups – Implication on Vaccination Strategies Cytomorphological Features as a Subtyping Tool of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Brushing Bronchoscopic Samples Fine-needle Aspiration Biopsy of Pilomatrixoma (Cytological Features of Six Cases Histologically Approved) Effectivity of Touch Imprint Cytology of Core Needle Biopsy in Evaluation of Breast Lesions: A Study in Changing Trends of Rapid on Site Evaluation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1