Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: A morphologic review of facts and artifacts

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 35, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 621-634

  Hoda, Rana S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Box 626   (United States)

Author keywords

Exfoliative cytology; Fine needle aspiration; Liquid based preparations; SurePath; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; ASPIRATION BIOPSY; CELL SIZE; CYTODIAGNOSIS; CYTOLOGY; DEVICE; HUMAN; LIQUID; MORPHOLOGY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VAGINA CYTOLOGY;

ARTIFACTS; BIOPSY, FINE-NEEDLE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MALE; MICROTOMY;

EID: 34948888817     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20698     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Linder J. Recent advances in thin-layer cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:24-32.
2. Bentz JS. Liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2005;5:857-871.
3. Michael CW, McConnel J, Pecott J, Afify AM, Al-Khafaji B. Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: A pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:177-184.
4. Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Wu HH. Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens. Cancer 2006;108:144-149.
5. Nicol TL, Kelly D, Reynolds L, Rosenthal DL. Comparison of TriPath thin-layer technology with conventional methods on nongynecologic specimens. Acta Cytol 2000;44:567-575.
6. Ford L, Rasgon BM, Hilsinger RL, Jr, et al. Comparison of ThinPrep versus conventional smear cytopreparatory techniques for fine-needle aspiration specimens of head and neck masses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126:554-561.
7. Michael CW, Hunter B. Interpretation of fine-needle aspirates processed by the ThinPrep technique: Cytologic artifacts and diagnostic pitfalls. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:6-13.
8. Lee KR, Papillo JL, St John T, Eyerer GJ. Evaluation of the ThinPrep processor for fine needle aspiration specimens. Acta Cytol 1996;40:895-899.
9. Dey P, Luthra UK, George J, Zuhairy F, George SS, Haji BI. Comparison of ThinPrep and preparations on fine needle aspiration cytology material. Acta Cytol 2000;44:46-50.
10. Veneti S, Daskalopoulou D, Zervoudis S, Papasotiriou E, Ioannidou-Mouzaka L. Liquid-based cytology in breast fine needle aspiration. Comparison with the conventional smear. Acta Cytol 2003;47:188-192.
11. Salhadar A, Massarini-Wafai R, Wojcik EM. Routine use of ThinPrep method in fine-needle aspiration material as an adjunct to standard smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:101-103.
12. Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield. ThinPrep vs. cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol 1994;38:33-36.
13. Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001;12:306-313.
14. Nasuti JF, Tam D, Gupta PK. Diagnostic value of liquid-based (ThinPrep) preparations in nongynecologic cases. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;24:137-141.
15. Negri G, Menia E, Egarter-Vigl E, Vittadello F, Mian C. ThinPrep versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in the cytologic follow-up of women with equivocal cervical smears. Cancer 2003;99:342-345.
16. Perez-Reyes N, Mulford DK, Rutkowski MA, Logan-Young W, Dawson AE. Breast fine-needle aspiration. A comparison of thin-layer and conventional preparation. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;102:349-353.
17. Alves VA, Bibbo M, Schmitt FC, Melanezi F, Longatto Filho A. Comparison of manual and automated methods of liquid-based cytology. A morphologic study. Acta Cytol 2004;48:187-193.
18. Gutter GE, Gatscha R, Zakowski MF. ThinPrep vs. conventional smears in fine-needle aspirations of sarcomas: A morphological and immunocytochemical study. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:351-354.
19. Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: Nongynecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:368-371.
20. Hees K, Lebeau PB. Comparison of conventional and ThinPrep preparations of mucoid cytology samples. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;12:181-185.
21. Gabriel C, Achten R, Drijkoningen M. Use of liquid-based cytology in serous fluids: A comparison with conventional cytopreparatory techniques. Acta Cytol 2004;48:825-835.
22. Motherby H, Pomjanski N, Kube M, et al. Semiautomated monolayer preparation of bronchial secretions using AutoCyte PREP. Acta Cytol 1999;43:47-57.
23. Koivurinne KI, Shield PW. Thin-layer preparations of dithiothreitol- treated bronchial washing specimens. Acta Cytol 2003;47:637-644.
24. Ylagan LR, Zhai J. The value of ThinPrep and cytospin preparation in pleural effusion cytological diagnosis of mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:137-144.
25. Sadeghi S, Ylagan LR. Pelvic washing cytology in serous borderline tumors of the ovary using ThinPrep: Are there cytologic clues to detecting tumor cells? Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:313-319.
26. Xin W, Raab SS, Michael CW. Low-grade urothelial carcinoma: Reappraisal of the cytologic criteria on ThinPrep. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;29:125-129.
27. Nassar H, Ali-Fehmi R, Madan S. Use of ThinPrep monolayer technique and cytospin preparation in urine cytology: A comparative analysis. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:115-118.
28. Zardawi IM, Duncan J. Evaluation of a centrifuge method and thin-layer preparation in urine cytology. Acta Cytol 2003;47:1038-1042.
29. Skacel M, Pettay JD, Tsiftsakis EK, Procop GW, Biscotti CV, Tubbs RR. Validation of a multicolor interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for detection of transitional cell carcinoma on fresh and archival thin-layer, liquid-based cytology slides. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2001;23:381-387.
30. Laudadio J, Keane TE, Reeves HM, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization for detecting transitional cell carcinoma: Implications for clinical practice. BJU Int 2005;96:1280-1285.
31. 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;93:242-247.
32. Henke AC, Jensen CS, Cohen MB. Cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in biliary and pancreatic duct brushings. Adv Anat Pathol 2002;9:301-308. (review).
33. Siddiqui MT, Gokaslan ST, Saboorian MH, Carrick K, Ashfaq R. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings. Cancer 2003;99:205-210.
34. Cohen MB, Wittchow RJ, Johlin FC, Bottles K, Raab SS. Brush cytology of the extrahepatic biliary tract: Comparison of cytologic features of adenocarcinoma and benign biliary strictures. Mod Pathol 1995;8:498-502.
35. Volmar KE, Vollmer RT, Routbort MJ, Creager AJ. Pancreatic and bile duct brushing cytology in 1000 cases: Review of findings and comparison of preparation methods. Cancer 2006:108:231-234.
36. Ylagan LR, Liu LH, Maluf HM. Endoscopic bile duct brushing of malignant pancreatic biliary strictures: Retrospective study with comparison of conventional smear and ThinPrep techniques. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:196-204.
37. Minamiguchi S, McEvoy R, Fraig M, Lewin D, Hoda RS. Bile duct brushings on ThinPrep: Experience with 68 specimens. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:292-293.
38. Hoda RS, Minamiguchi S, Lewin DN, Foody W, Weselow G, Wildi SM. Granular cell tumor of the biliary system: A report of 2 cases with cytologic diagnosis on endoscopic brushing. Acta Cytol 2005;49:199-203.
39. Kontzoglou K, Moulakakis KG, Konofaos P, et al. The role of liquid-based cytology in the investigation of breast lesions using fine-needle aspiration: A cytohistopathological evaluation. J Surg Oncol 2005;89:75-78.
40. 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;21:137-141.
41. Bedard YC, Pollett AF. Breast fine-needle aspiration. A comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111:523-527.
42. Ali AS, Yin D, Yao D, Vazquez M. Criteria for the diagnosis of fibroepithelial lesions of the breast with liquid-based cytology. Acta Cytol 2004;48:481-486.
43. Myers T, Wang HH. Fibroadenoma mimicking papillary carcinoma on ThinPrep of fine-needle aspiration of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:1667-1669.
44. Ayata G, Wang HH. Fine needle aspiration cytology of lobular carcinoma in situ on ThinPrep. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:276-280.
45. Malle D, Valeri RM, Pazaitou-Panajiotou K, Kiziridou A, Vainas I, Destouni C. Use of a thin-layer technique in thyroid fine needle aspiration. Acta Cytol 2006;50:23-27.
46. Tulecke MA, Wang HH. ThinPrep for cytologic evaluation of follicular thyroid lesions: Correlation with histologic findings. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:7-13.
47. Zhang Y, Fraser JL, Wang HH. Morphologic predictors of papillary carcinoma on fine-needle aspiration of thyroid with ThinPrep preparations. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;24:378-383.
48. Cochand-Priollet B, Prat J-J, Polivka M, et al. Thyroid fine needle aspiration: The morphological features on ThinPrep slide preparations. Eighty cases with histological control. Cytopathology 2003;14:343-349.
49. Afify AM, Liu J, Al-Khafaji BM. Cytologic artifacts and pitfalls of thyroid fine-needle aspiration using ThinPrep: A comparative retrospective review. Cancer 2001;93:179-186.
50. Frost AR, Sidawy MK, Ferfelli M, et al. Utility of thin-layer preparations in thyroid fine-needle aspiration: Diagnostic accuracy, cytomorphology, and optimal sample preparation. Cancer 1998;84:17-25.
51. Parfitt JR, McLachlin CM, Weir MM. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in salivary gland fine-needle aspiration biopsies. Cancer 2007;111:123-129.
52. Al-Khafaji BM, Afify AM. Salivary gland fine needle aspiration using the ThinPrep technique: Diagnostic accuracy, cytologic artifacts and pitfalls. Acta Cytol 2001;45:567-574.
53. Al-Khafaji BM, Nestok BR, Katz RL. Fine-needle aspiration of 154 parotid masses with histologic correlation: Ten-year experience at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Cancer 1998;84:153-159.
54. Crapanzano JP, Zakowski MF. Diagnostic dilemmas in pulmonary cytology. Cancer 2001;93:364-375.
55. Bavikatty NR, Michael CW. Cytologic features of small-cell carcinoma on ThinPrep. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;29:8-12.
56. Fischler DF, Toddy SM. Nongynecologic cytology utilizing the ThinPrep Processor. Acta Cytol 1996;40:669-675.
57. Wallace WA, Monaghan HM, Salter DM, Gibbons MA, Skwarski KM. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and liquid-based thin-layer cytology. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60:388-391.
58. de Luna R, Eloubeidi MA, Sheffield MV, et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:71-76.
59. Cohen MB, Egerter DP, Holly EA, Ahn DK, Miller TR. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Regression analysis to identify improved cytologic criteria. Dian Cytopathol 1991;7:341-345.
60. Brandao GD, Rose R, McKenzie S, Maslak P, Lin O. Grading follicular lymphomas in fine-needle aspiration biopsies: The role of ThinPrep slides and flow cytometry. Cancer 2006;108:319-323.
61. Das K, Hameed M, Heller D, et al. Liquid-based vs. conventional smears in fine needle aspiration of bone and soft tissue tumors. Acta Cytol 2003;47:197-201.
62. Barka GA, Rubin MA, Michael CW. Diagnosis of melanoma aspirates on ThinPrep: The University of Michigan experience. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:334-339.
63. Morrison C, Young DC, Wakely PE, Jr. Cytopathology of malignant melanoma in conventional and liquid-based smears. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:435-341.
64. Yeoh GP, Chan KW. Cell block preparation on residual ThinPrep sample. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:427-431.
65. Dabbs DJ, Abendroth CS, Grenko RT, Wang X, Radcliffe GE. Immunocytochemistry on the Thinprep processor. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:388-392.
66. Leung SW, Bedard YC. Immunocytochemical staining on ThinPrep processed smears. Mod Pathol 1996;9:304-306.
67. Leung SW, Bedard YC. Estrogen and progesterone receptor contents in ThinPrep-processed fine-needle aspirates of breast. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;112:50-56.
68. Gong Y, Sun X, Michael CW, Attal S, Williamson BA, Bedrossian CW. Immunocytochemistry of serous effusion specimens: A comparison of ThinPrep vs. cell block. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:1-5.
69. Giri DD, Gupta PK, Hoda RS. Cytologic diagnosis of metastatic basal cell carcinoma. Report of a case with immunocytochemical and molecular pathologic considerations. Acta Cytol 2000;44:232-236.
70. Daugherty HK, Jr, Rumboldt T, Hoda RS. Contralateral metastasis of a cutaneous Merkel cell carcinoma: Diagnosis by fine needle aspiration cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;33:450-451.
71. Fadda G, Rossi ED, Mule A, Miraglia A, Vecchio FM, Capelli A. Diagnostic efficacy of immunocytochemistry on fine needle aspiration biopsies processed by thin-layer cytology. Acta Cytol 2006;50:129-135.
72. Fetsch PA, Simsir A, Brosky K, Abati A. Comparison of three commonly used cytologic preparations in effusion immunocytochemistry. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:61-66.
73. Sahoo S, Hoda SA, Rosai J, DeLellis RA. Cytokeratin 19 immunoreactivity in the diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma: A note of caution. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:696-702.
74. Pollett A, Bedard YC, Li SQ, et al. Correlation of p53 mutations in ThinPrep-processed fine needle breast aspirates with surgically resected breast cancers. Mod Pathol 2000;13:1173-1179.
75. Tisserand P, Fouquet C, Marck V, et al. ThinPrep-processed fine-needle samples of breast are effective material for RNA- and DNA-based molecular diagnosis: Application to p53 mutation analysis. Cancer 2003;99:223-232.
76. Ernst LM, Rimm DL. Quantitative examination of mechanophysical tumor cell enrichment in fine-needle aspiration specimens. Cancer 2002;96:275-279.