Cytomorphological comparison of ThinPrep and SurePath liquid‐based cytology in thyroid fine‐needle aspiration

• Published in: Diagnostic cytopathology 2024-04, Vol.52 (4), p.217-224
• Main Authors: Lee, Wen‐Ying, Wang, Hsiu‐Chu, Tien, Kai‐Jen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cellular biology; fine‐needle aspiration; Leukocytes; liquid‐based cytology; liquid‐based preparation; SurePath; ThinPrep; thyroid; Thyroid gland
• ISSN: 8755-1039; 1097-0339
• DOI: 10.1002/dc.25274

Background The two widely established systems for liquid‐based cytology (LBC), ThinPrep and SurePath, employ different principles. The aim of this study was to compare the cytomorphology of thyroid lesions prepared by the two techniques. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 44 thyroid FNA specimens prepared by LBC, including 20 ThinPrep and 22 SurePath. Cytologic diagnoses were made according to the Bethesda system and cytomorphologic parameters were evaluated. Results Acellular smears were significantly frequent in ThinPrep than SurePath (10% vs. 0%). Both techniques produced a clean background, well cell preservation, and not apparent cell shrinkage. ThinPrep showed significantly lower cellularity than SurePath (25% vs. 4.3%). ThinPrep produced considerable flattening and fragmented clusters, while SurePath contained larger clusters in a three‐dimensional configuration. Colloid was significantly reduced in amount and fragmented in ThinPrep, and was easily observed in SurePath. In cases of Hashimoto's thyroiditis, ThinPrep produced much less leukocytes in background than SurePath. Aggregates of fibrin and leukocytes were frequently present in 10/16 cases (62.5%) processed by ThinPrep. Air‐dry artifact at periphery of the ring was present in 6/16 cases (37.5%) processed by ThinPrep. The nuclear features of papillary carcinoma were similarly evident in both LBC preparations. Conclusion SurePath seems to be superior to ThinPrep for diagnosing benign entities based on adequate representation of colloid and lymphocytes. The cell quality of both techniques in thyroid FNA was comparable, while each method introduces its own unique cytologic artifacts related to its methodology. We should recognize the cytomorphologic alterations to avoid misinterpretations.