Cargando…

Utility of manual liquid-based cytology and conventional smears in the evaluation of various fine-needle aspiration samples

BACKGROUND: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) preparation is a way to improve and refine the fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples. There are a few studies comparing LBC with conventional smear (CS). AIM: The present study was undertaken to evaluate the utility of manual LBC (MLBC) and CS preparations in v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Arul, P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5156978/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28028330
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9371.190446
_version_ 1782481364955693056
author Arul, P
author_facet Arul, P
author_sort Arul, P
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) preparation is a way to improve and refine the fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples. There are a few studies comparing LBC with conventional smear (CS). AIM: The present study was undertaken to evaluate the utility of manual LBC (MLBC) and CS preparations in various FNA samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 100 FNA samples from various anatomical sites were evaluated using MLBC and CS preparations. Cellularity, blood, informative background, monolayers, cell architecture, cytoplasmic, and nuclear preservation were compared with MLBC and CS preparations by Wilcoxon signed rank test. P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. RESULTS: MLBC preparations were superior to CS preparations in view of absence of blood and debris (P = 0.001), presence of monolayers (P < 0.001), and preservation of cytoplasmic (P = 0.001) and nuclear details (P = 0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were found between MLBC and CS preparations with regard to cellularity (P = 0.157), informative background (P = 0.083), and architecture (P = 0.739). CONCLUSION: MLBC preparations in FNAC are a safe, easy, and less time-consuming procedure, and it may have promising diagnostic value in the evaluation of FNA samples from various anatomical sites. However, the use of both MLBC and CS preparations is recommended to achieve optimal diagnostic yield.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5156978
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51569782016-12-27 Utility of manual liquid-based cytology and conventional smears in the evaluation of various fine-needle aspiration samples Arul, P J Cytol Original Article BACKGROUND: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) preparation is a way to improve and refine the fine-needle aspiration (FNA) samples. There are a few studies comparing LBC with conventional smear (CS). AIM: The present study was undertaken to evaluate the utility of manual LBC (MLBC) and CS preparations in various FNA samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 100 FNA samples from various anatomical sites were evaluated using MLBC and CS preparations. Cellularity, blood, informative background, monolayers, cell architecture, cytoplasmic, and nuclear preservation were compared with MLBC and CS preparations by Wilcoxon signed rank test. P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. RESULTS: MLBC preparations were superior to CS preparations in view of absence of blood and debris (P = 0.001), presence of monolayers (P < 0.001), and preservation of cytoplasmic (P = 0.001) and nuclear details (P = 0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were found between MLBC and CS preparations with regard to cellularity (P = 0.157), informative background (P = 0.083), and architecture (P = 0.739). CONCLUSION: MLBC preparations in FNAC are a safe, easy, and less time-consuming procedure, and it may have promising diagnostic value in the evaluation of FNA samples from various anatomical sites. However, the use of both MLBC and CS preparations is recommended to achieve optimal diagnostic yield. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5156978/ /pubmed/28028330 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9371.190446 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Journal of Cytology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Arul, P
Utility of manual liquid-based cytology and conventional smears in the evaluation of various fine-needle aspiration samples
title Utility of manual liquid-based cytology and conventional smears in the evaluation of various fine-needle aspiration samples
title_full Utility of manual liquid-based cytology and conventional smears in the evaluation of various fine-needle aspiration samples
title_fullStr Utility of manual liquid-based cytology and conventional smears in the evaluation of various fine-needle aspiration samples
title_full_unstemmed Utility of manual liquid-based cytology and conventional smears in the evaluation of various fine-needle aspiration samples
title_short Utility of manual liquid-based cytology and conventional smears in the evaluation of various fine-needle aspiration samples
title_sort utility of manual liquid-based cytology and conventional smears in the evaluation of various fine-needle aspiration samples
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5156978/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28028330
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9371.190446
work_keys_str_mv AT arulp utilityofmanualliquidbasedcytologyandconventionalsmearsintheevaluationofvariousfineneedleaspirationsamples