𝔖 Bobbio Scriptorium
✦   LIBER   ✦

Comparison of ThinPrep® and conventional preparations in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration biopsy

✍ Scribed by Regina de Luna; Mohamad A. Eloubeidi; Matthew V. Sheffield; Isam Eltoum; Nirag Jhala; Darshana Jhala; Victor K. Chen; David C. Chhieng


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
2004
Tongue
English
Weight
171 KB
Volume
30
Category
Article
ISSN
8755-1039

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

✦ Synopsis


Abstract

Use of ThinPrep® preparation for fine‐needle aspiration biopsy (FNA) is gaining popularity. However, there may be a difference in the morphology and the operating characteristics between ThinPrep and conventional methods. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of the two methods and to address the pitfalls of ThinPrep preparation in pancreatic FNA. A computer search identified 67 pancreatic FNAs with both conventional smears and ThinPrep preparation during a 19‐mo period. These cases, obtained under endoscopic ultrasound‐guidance, consisted of 47 malignant neoplasms (44 ductal carcinomas, two mucinous neoplasms, and one islet cell tumor) and 20 benign lesions. Direct smears were prepared first and the remaining material was then put into PreservCyt Solution for ThinPrep slides. All slides were reviewed and the cytologic diagnoses were correlated with histologic and clinical follow‐up. Five conventional and 16 ThinPrep specimens were unsatisfactory due to insufficient cellularity. These cases were excluded from the analysis. Among the 62 cases evaluated by conventional preparation, 77% (34) were diagnosed as positive and 14% (seven) atypical/suspicious by conventional smears. For the 51 ThinPrep specimens, 58% (22) were interpreted as positive and 31% (12) atypical/suspicious. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosing a malignancy were 77%, 100%, and 84% for conventional smears and 58%, 100%, and 67% for ThinPrep preparation, respectively. There were no false positives with either method. However, three benign lesions were interpreted as atypical/suspicious with ThinPrep preparation because of the presence of single atypical cells with distinct nucleoli. One of the two mucinous neoplasms was incorrectly diagnosed with ThinPrep preparation because of lack of mucin. The diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic FNA using ThinPrep is inferior to that of conventional smears. This may be partly due to the use of split sample technique resulting in scant cellularity in ThinPrep preparation and partly due to the differences in morphology between the two preparations. Therefore, the current morphologic criteria may need modification for ThinPrep preparation in pancreatic FNA. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2004;30:71–76. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.


📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES


Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional
✍ Parfitt, Jeremy R. ;McLachlin, C. Meg ;Weir, Michele M. 📂 Article 📅 2007 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 184 KB 👁 2 views

BACKGROUND. ThinPrep (TP) cytology for evaluation of nongynecological specimens is being increasingly used. There are few studies comparing TP with conventional smears (CS) in salivary gland (SG) fine-needle aspiration biopsies (FNAB). This study compares diagnostic accuracy and morphology of TP and

Fine-needle aspiration cytology of mamma
✍ Thai Yen Ly; Penny J. Barnes; Rebecca F. MacIntosh 📂 Article 📅 2010 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 180 KB 👁 1 views

Mammary fibroadenoma (FA) is a lesion frequently sampled and diagnosed by fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Accurate cytologic diagnosis of this common benign lesion is important as this can lead to non-surgical, conservative management when breast imaging and clinical examination are concordant. In mos

ThinPrep® vs. conventional smear cytolog
✍ Charles V. Biscotti; Julie H. Shorie; Terry L. Gramlich; Kirk A. Easley 📂 Article 📅 1999 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 91 KB 👁 2 views

Limited data exist concerning the cellular features of the ThinPrep (Cytyc Corp., Boxborough, MA) technique in the analysis of breast fine-needle aspiration specimens. Therefore, we analyzed a series of 75 surgically excised palpable breast masses and compared ThinPrep and conventional smear fine-ne