Accuracy of bronchial brush and wash specimens prepared by the ThinPrep method in the diagnosis of pulmonary small cell carcinoma

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 122, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 577-585

  Wang, Cheng ^a   Duan, Qiuli ^a,b   Kelly, Margaret ^c   Duggan, Máire A ^c  

^a ALBERTA HEALTH SERVICES   (Canada)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Abnormal cell features; Bronchial brush; Bronchial wash; Pulmonary small cell carcinoma; Thinprep sensitivity and specificity

Indexed keywords

ABNORMAL CELL FEATURES; BRONCHIAL BRUSH; BRONCHIAL WASH; PULMONARY SMALL CELL CARCINOMA; THINPREP SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BRONCHOALVEOLAR LAVAGE; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SMALL CELL LUNG CARCINOMA;

EID: 84906860344     PISSN: 1934662X     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21435     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Berg J, Aase S, Soland TH, et al. The value of cytology in the diagnostics of lung cancer. APMIS. 2005;113:208-212.
2. Jay SJ, Wehr K, Nicholson DP, Smith AL. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of pulmonary cytology: comparison of techniques used in conjunction with flexible fiber optic bronchoscopy. Acta Cytol. 1980;24:304-312.
3. Schreiber G, McCrory DC. Performance characteristics of different modalities for diagnosis of suspected lung cancer: summary of published evidence. Chest. 2003;123(Suppl. 1):115-128.
4. Gustafsson BI, Kidd M, Chan A, Malfertheiner MV, Modlin IM. Bronchopulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer. 2008;113: 5-21.
5. Sneige N. Should specimen adequacy be determined by the opinion of the aspirator or by the cells on the slides. Cancer Cytopathol. 1997;81:3-5.
6. Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of Thin Prep and conventional preparations: non gynecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16:368-371.
7. Dey P, Luthra UK, George J, Zuhairy F, George SS, Haji BI. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations on fine needle aspiration cytology material. Acta Cytol. 2000;44:46-50.
8. Nasuti JF, Tam D, Gupta PK. Diagnostic value of liquid-based (Thinprep) preparations in nongynecologic cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001;24:137-134.
9. Hoda RS. Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: A morphologic review of facts and artifacts. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:621-634.
10. Choi YD, Han CW, Kim JH, et al. Effectiveness of sputum cytology using the Thinprep method for evaluation of lung cancer. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008;36:167-171.
11. Kim S, Owens CL. Analysis of Thinprep cytology in establishing the diagnosis of small cell carcinoma of lung. Cancer Cytopathol. 2009;117:51-56.
12. Sturgis CD, Nassar DL, D'Antonio JA, Raab SS. Cytologic features useful for distinguishing small cell from non-small cell carcinoma in bronchial brush and wash specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114:197-202.
13. Arora VK, Singh N, Chaturvedi S, Bhatia A. Significance of cytologic criteria in distinguishing small cell from non-small carcinoma of the lung. Acta Cytol. 2003;47: 216-220.
14. Bavikatty NR, Michael CW. Cytologic features of small-cell carcinoma on Thin Prep. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;29:8-12.
15. Galen RS, Gambino SR. Beyond Normality: The Predictive Value and Efficiency of Medical Diagnoses. New York, NY: Wiley; 1975.
16. Nodit L, Balassanian R, Sudilovsky D, Rabb SS. Improving the quality of cytology diagnosis: root cause analysis for errors in bronchial washing and brushing specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005; 124:883-892.
17. Screening Practices. Canadian Society of Cytopathology Guidelines for Practice and Quality Assurance in Cytopathology. 2012;4:10. http://www.cap-acp. org/cytology.cfm.