Acta Cytologica
Nongynecologic Cytopathology
Comparison of Conventional Cytology, Liquid-Based Cytology, and Cell Block in the Evaluation of Peritoneal Fluid in Gynecology MalignanciesAmiri Z.a · Momtahan M.b · Mokhtari M.aaPathology Department, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
bGynecology and Obstetrics Department, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran |
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: August 25, 2018
Accepted: November 19, 2018
Published online: January 09, 2019
Issue release date: January – February
Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 3
Number of Tables: 7
ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ACY
Abstract
Background: Peritoneal washing cytology has become an accepted method in evaluating gynecology malignancies. Objective: The aim of this work was to compare the conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology (LBC), and cell block in the evaluation of peritoneal fluid. Materials and Methods: A total of 48 cases with ovarian and uterine malignancy were included in this study. The age of the patients varied from 15 to 71 years. All the 48 cases were subjected to conventional smear, LBC, and cell block preparation. Results: The results of LBC and conventional methods were in line with all cytological criteria, except for the background (p = 0.045), but no significant difference was found regarding adequacy (p = 0.12), cellularity (p = 0.13), cell architecture (p = 0.751), nuclear details (p = 0.96), and cytoplasmic details (p = 0.32). The kappa correlation between conventional cytology and LBC, conventional cytology and cell block, and LBC and cell block was 0.769, 0.791, and 0.945, respectively. The most prevalent malignancy which led to peritoneal fluid involvement was papillary serous carcinoma of the ovary. Conclusion: Compared to conventional cytology, the liquid-based method had no significant superiority in the evaluation of the peritoneal fluid method, but the combined usage of smears and cell block improved the diagnostic accuracy of the peritoneal washing samples in different gynecological malignancies.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
References
- Ledermann JA, Raja FA, Fotopoulou C, Gonzalez-Martin A, Colombo N, Sessa C; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013 Oct;24 Suppl 6:vi24–32.
- Colombo N, Preti E, Landoni F, Carinelli S, Colombo A, Marini C, et al.; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013 Oct;24 Suppl 6:vi33–8.
- Jelovac D, Armstrong DK. Recent progress in the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011 May-Jun;61(3):183–203.
- Tyagi R, Gupta N, Bhagat P, Gainder S, Rai B, Dhaliwal LK, et al. Impact of SurePath® liquid-based preparation in cytological analysis of peritoneal washing in practice of gynecologic oncology. J Cytol. 2017 Apr-Jun;34(2):95–100.
- Lin O. Challenges in the interpretation of peritoneal cytologic specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009 May;133(5):739–42.
-
Alwahaibi N, Alnoumani N, Bai U. Comparison of ThinPrep® and conventional preparations for peritoneal and pleural cytology smears. Annu Res Rev Biol. 2014;4(20):3139–49.
External Resources
-
Nair GG, Manjula AA. Comparative study of cell-blocks and routine cytological smears of pleural and peritoneal fluids in suspected cases of malignancy. Indian J Pathol Oncol. 2015;2(2):61–68.
- Bhanvadia VM, Santwani PM, Vachhani JH. Analysis of diagnostic value of cytological smear method versus cell block method in body fluid cytology: study of 150 cases. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2014 Apr;24(2):125–31.
-
Babloyan SR, Voulgaris Z, Papaefthimiou M, Beglaryan G, Kyroudi A, Karakitsos P. Comparison of quality between conventional and ThinPrep cytology in investigation of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. New Arm Med J. 2009;3(3):22–8.
- Mygdakos N, Nikolaidou S, Tzilivaki A, Tamiolakis D. Liquid Based Preparation (LBP) cytology versus Conventional Cytology (CS) in FNA samples from breast, thyroid, salivary glands and soft tissues. Our experience in Crete (Greece). Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2009;50(2):245–50.
- Pawar PS, Gadkari RU, Swami SY, Joshi AR. Comparative study of manual liquid-based cytology (MLBC) technique and direct smear technique (conventional) on fine-needle cytology/fine-needle aspiration cytology samples. J Cytol. 2014 Apr;31(2):83–6.
- Tripathy K, Misra A, Ghosh JK. Efficacy of liquid-based cytology versus conventional smears in FNA samples. J Cytol. 2015 Jan-Mar;32(1):17–20.
- Moriarty AT, Schwartz MR, Ducatman BS, Booth CN, Haja J, Chakraborty S, et al.; College of American Pathologists. A liquid concept—do classic preparations of body cavity fluid perform differently than ThinPrep cases? Observations from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008 Nov;132(11):1716–8.
- Rossi ED, Bizzarro T, Schmitt F, Longatto-Filho A. The role of liquid-based cytology and ancillary techniques in pleural and pericardic effusions: an institutional experience. Cancer Cytopathol. 2015 Apr;123(4):258–66.
-
Sakamoto H, Takenaka M, Ushimaru K, Tanaka T. Use of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and cell blocks from cell remnants for cytologic, immunohistochemical, and immunocytochemical diagnosis of malignancy. Open J Pathol. 2012;02(03):58–65.
External Resources
Article / Publication Details
Received: August 25, 2018
Accepted: November 19, 2018
Published online: January 09, 2019
Issue release date: January – February
Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 3
Number of Tables: 7
ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ACY
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
