Loading…
Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration biopsies
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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Cancer 2007-04, Vol.111 (2), p.123-129 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-55c55d9ce7b62d48c92fbb62d430ff2d9ea40a3067bfd9c966d430011cbf0f183 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-55c55d9ce7b62d48c92fbb62d430ff2d9ea40a3067bfd9c966d430011cbf0f183 |
container_end_page | 129 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 123 |
container_title | Cancer |
container_volume | 111 |
creator | Parfitt, Jeremy R. McLachlin, C. Meg Weir, Michele M. |
description | 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 CS in SG FNABs.
METHODS
The authors retrospectively reviewed 98 satisfactory SG FNABs with both TP and CS. All cases had surgical resection. CS and TP slides were assessed for multiple morphological parameters, as well as the ability to make the diagnosis. Chi‐square analysis was performed to compare CS and TP.
RESULTS
An accurate diagnosis was rendered more commonly with CS compared with TP (57% versus 42%; P = .032), whereas the unsatisfactory rate was greater with TP compared with CS (19% versus 9%; P = .041). The error (4%) and indeterminate (35%) rates for TP were similar to CS. The diagnostic yield was greater for cellular cases, which were more frequent with CS compared with TP, than for cases of low cellularity; the diagnostic yield of cellular TP cases and cellular CS cases was similar. Artifacts (crush, air drying, obscuring blood) were more frequent (12%, 13%, and 27% versus 2%, 0%, and 1%; P ≤ .006) in CS compared with TP. Although fragmentation was greater and nuclear detail was better in TP (P ≤ .03), cell size was larger in CS (P = .002). A specific diagnosis of pleomorphic adenoma (PA) was more frequently rendered with CS compared with TP (83% versus 63%; P = .045). PA stroma was more abundant, and an epithelial‐stromal interface (ESI) was more frequent in CS compared with TP (ESI, 76% versus 38%; P ≤ .001).
CONCLUSIONS
There are morphological differences between TP and CS in SG FNABs, especially with respect to stromal appearance. Although CS appears to be preferable to TP in the diagnosis of PA overall, CS and TP have equivalent diagnostic yield in highly cellular cases. Complementary use of both TP and CS preparations to achieve optimal diagnostic yield is recommended, given the artifacts of some CS and the not infrequent unsatisfactory nature of 1 preparation alone. Cancer (Cytopathol) 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.
There are morphological differences between ThinPrep (TP) and conventional smears (CS) in salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs), especially with respect to stromal appearance. Although CS appears to be preferable to TP in the diagnosis of pleomorphic adenoma overall, complementary use of both TP and CS prep |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/cncr.22575 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70395245</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70395245</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-55c55d9ce7b62d48c92fbb62d430ff2d9ea40a3067bfd9c966d430011cbf0f183</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90M1u1DAQB3ALUdGlcOEBkC9wQEoZ23G8OaKofEgVINRK3CLHGYNRYgdPt1VvPALPyJPU6a7UGyfb8s8z4z9jLwScCgD51kWXT6XURj9iGwGtqUDU8jHbAMC20rX6fsyeEv0qRyO1esKOhVEKpFEbNnRpXmwOlCJPnl_8DPFrxoXbOHKX4jXGq5CinTjNaDPxEDnZKVzbfMt_TKvyIeK_P38j4jght7SEbNc3fAhpoYD0jB15OxE-P6wn7PL92UX3sTr_8uFT9-68cqqMXmnttB5bh2Zo5FhvXSv9cL9V4L0cW7Q1WAWNGXxhbdOsNyCEGzx4sVUn7PW-7pLT7x3SVT8HcjiVKTHtqDegWi1rXeCbPXQ5EWX0_ZLDXH7UC-jXRPs10f4-0YJfHqruhhnHB3qIsIBXB2DJ2clnG12gB7dtjGkEFCf27iZMePufln33ufu2b34HHaCQWQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70395245</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration biopsies</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Parfitt, Jeremy R. ; McLachlin, C. Meg ; Weir, Michele M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Parfitt, Jeremy R. ; McLachlin, C. Meg ; Weir, Michele M.</creatorcontrib><description>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 CS in SG FNABs.
METHODS
The authors retrospectively reviewed 98 satisfactory SG FNABs with both TP and CS. All cases had surgical resection. CS and TP slides were assessed for multiple morphological parameters, as well as the ability to make the diagnosis. Chi‐square analysis was performed to compare CS and TP.
RESULTS
An accurate diagnosis was rendered more commonly with CS compared with TP (57% versus 42%; P = .032), whereas the unsatisfactory rate was greater with TP compared with CS (19% versus 9%; P = .041). The error (4%) and indeterminate (35%) rates for TP were similar to CS. The diagnostic yield was greater for cellular cases, which were more frequent with CS compared with TP, than for cases of low cellularity; the diagnostic yield of cellular TP cases and cellular CS cases was similar. Artifacts (crush, air drying, obscuring blood) were more frequent (12%, 13%, and 27% versus 2%, 0%, and 1%; P ≤ .006) in CS compared with TP. Although fragmentation was greater and nuclear detail was better in TP (P ≤ .03), cell size was larger in CS (P = .002). A specific diagnosis of pleomorphic adenoma (PA) was more frequently rendered with CS compared with TP (83% versus 63%; P = .045). PA stroma was more abundant, and an epithelial‐stromal interface (ESI) was more frequent in CS compared with TP (ESI, 76% versus 38%; P ≤ .001).
CONCLUSIONS
There are morphological differences between TP and CS in SG FNABs, especially with respect to stromal appearance. Although CS appears to be preferable to TP in the diagnosis of PA overall, CS and TP have equivalent diagnostic yield in highly cellular cases. Complementary use of both TP and CS preparations to achieve optimal diagnostic yield is recommended, given the artifacts of some CS and the not infrequent unsatisfactory nature of 1 preparation alone. Cancer (Cytopathol) 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.
There are morphological differences between ThinPrep (TP) and conventional smears (CS) in salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs), especially with respect to stromal appearance. Although CS appears to be preferable to TP in the diagnosis of pleomorphic adenoma overall, complementary use of both TP and CS preparations to achieve optimal diagnostic yield is recommended, given the artifacts of some CS and the not infrequent unsatisfactory nature of 1 preparation alone.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-543X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0142</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22575</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17330273</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CANCAR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Biopsy, Fine-Needle ; conventional smear ; Cytological Techniques ; fine‐needle aspiration ; FNA ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; salivary gland ; Salivary Gland Neoplasms - surgery ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; ThinPrep ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Cancer, 2007-04, Vol.111 (2), p.123-129</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2007 American Cancer Society</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>(c) 2007 American Cancer Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-55c55d9ce7b62d48c92fbb62d430ff2d9ea40a3067bfd9c966d430011cbf0f183</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-55c55d9ce7b62d48c92fbb62d430ff2d9ea40a3067bfd9c966d430011cbf0f183</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=18677610$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17330273$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parfitt, Jeremy R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLachlin, C. Meg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weir, Michele M.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration biopsies</title><title>Cancer</title><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><description>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 CS in SG FNABs.
METHODS
The authors retrospectively reviewed 98 satisfactory SG FNABs with both TP and CS. All cases had surgical resection. CS and TP slides were assessed for multiple morphological parameters, as well as the ability to make the diagnosis. Chi‐square analysis was performed to compare CS and TP.
RESULTS
An accurate diagnosis was rendered more commonly with CS compared with TP (57% versus 42%; P = .032), whereas the unsatisfactory rate was greater with TP compared with CS (19% versus 9%; P = .041). The error (4%) and indeterminate (35%) rates for TP were similar to CS. The diagnostic yield was greater for cellular cases, which were more frequent with CS compared with TP, than for cases of low cellularity; the diagnostic yield of cellular TP cases and cellular CS cases was similar. Artifacts (crush, air drying, obscuring blood) were more frequent (12%, 13%, and 27% versus 2%, 0%, and 1%; P ≤ .006) in CS compared with TP. Although fragmentation was greater and nuclear detail was better in TP (P ≤ .03), cell size was larger in CS (P = .002). A specific diagnosis of pleomorphic adenoma (PA) was more frequently rendered with CS compared with TP (83% versus 63%; P = .045). PA stroma was more abundant, and an epithelial‐stromal interface (ESI) was more frequent in CS compared with TP (ESI, 76% versus 38%; P ≤ .001).
CONCLUSIONS
There are morphological differences between TP and CS in SG FNABs, especially with respect to stromal appearance. Although CS appears to be preferable to TP in the diagnosis of PA overall, CS and TP have equivalent diagnostic yield in highly cellular cases. Complementary use of both TP and CS preparations to achieve optimal diagnostic yield is recommended, given the artifacts of some CS and the not infrequent unsatisfactory nature of 1 preparation alone. Cancer (Cytopathol) 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.
There are morphological differences between ThinPrep (TP) and conventional smears (CS) in salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs), especially with respect to stromal appearance. Although CS appears to be preferable to TP in the diagnosis of pleomorphic adenoma overall, complementary use of both TP and CS preparations to achieve optimal diagnostic yield is recommended, given the artifacts of some CS and the not infrequent unsatisfactory nature of 1 preparation alone.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biopsy, Fine-Needle</subject><subject>conventional smear</subject><subject>Cytological Techniques</subject><subject>fine‐needle aspiration</subject><subject>FNA</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>salivary gland</subject><subject>Salivary Gland Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>ThinPrep</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0008-543X</issn><issn>1097-0142</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90M1u1DAQB3ALUdGlcOEBkC9wQEoZ23G8OaKofEgVINRK3CLHGYNRYgdPt1VvPALPyJPU6a7UGyfb8s8z4z9jLwScCgD51kWXT6XURj9iGwGtqUDU8jHbAMC20rX6fsyeEv0qRyO1esKOhVEKpFEbNnRpXmwOlCJPnl_8DPFrxoXbOHKX4jXGq5CinTjNaDPxEDnZKVzbfMt_TKvyIeK_P38j4jght7SEbNc3fAhpoYD0jB15OxE-P6wn7PL92UX3sTr_8uFT9-68cqqMXmnttB5bh2Zo5FhvXSv9cL9V4L0cW7Q1WAWNGXxhbdOsNyCEGzx4sVUn7PW-7pLT7x3SVT8HcjiVKTHtqDegWi1rXeCbPXQ5EWX0_ZLDXH7UC-jXRPs10f4-0YJfHqruhhnHB3qIsIBXB2DJ2clnG12gB7dtjGkEFCf27iZMePufln33ufu2b34HHaCQWQ</recordid><startdate>20070425</startdate><enddate>20070425</enddate><creator>Parfitt, Jeremy R.</creator><creator>McLachlin, C. Meg</creator><creator>Weir, Michele M.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>Wiley-Liss</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070425</creationdate><title>Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration biopsies</title><author>Parfitt, Jeremy R. ; McLachlin, C. Meg ; Weir, Michele M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-55c55d9ce7b62d48c92fbb62d430ff2d9ea40a3067bfd9c966d430011cbf0f183</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biopsy, Fine-Needle</topic><topic>conventional smear</topic><topic>Cytological Techniques</topic><topic>fine‐needle aspiration</topic><topic>FNA</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>salivary gland</topic><topic>Salivary Gland Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>ThinPrep</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parfitt, Jeremy R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLachlin, C. Meg</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weir, Michele M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parfitt, Jeremy R.</au><au>McLachlin, C. Meg</au><au>Weir, Michele M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration biopsies</atitle><jtitle>Cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer</addtitle><date>2007-04-25</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>111</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>123</spage><epage>129</epage><pages>123-129</pages><issn>0008-543X</issn><eissn>1097-0142</eissn><coden>CANCAR</coden><abstract>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 CS in SG FNABs.
METHODS
The authors retrospectively reviewed 98 satisfactory SG FNABs with both TP and CS. All cases had surgical resection. CS and TP slides were assessed for multiple morphological parameters, as well as the ability to make the diagnosis. Chi‐square analysis was performed to compare CS and TP.
RESULTS
An accurate diagnosis was rendered more commonly with CS compared with TP (57% versus 42%; P = .032), whereas the unsatisfactory rate was greater with TP compared with CS (19% versus 9%; P = .041). The error (4%) and indeterminate (35%) rates for TP were similar to CS. The diagnostic yield was greater for cellular cases, which were more frequent with CS compared with TP, than for cases of low cellularity; the diagnostic yield of cellular TP cases and cellular CS cases was similar. Artifacts (crush, air drying, obscuring blood) were more frequent (12%, 13%, and 27% versus 2%, 0%, and 1%; P ≤ .006) in CS compared with TP. Although fragmentation was greater and nuclear detail was better in TP (P ≤ .03), cell size was larger in CS (P = .002). A specific diagnosis of pleomorphic adenoma (PA) was more frequently rendered with CS compared with TP (83% versus 63%; P = .045). PA stroma was more abundant, and an epithelial‐stromal interface (ESI) was more frequent in CS compared with TP (ESI, 76% versus 38%; P ≤ .001).
CONCLUSIONS
There are morphological differences between TP and CS in SG FNABs, especially with respect to stromal appearance. Although CS appears to be preferable to TP in the diagnosis of PA overall, CS and TP have equivalent diagnostic yield in highly cellular cases. Complementary use of both TP and CS preparations to achieve optimal diagnostic yield is recommended, given the artifacts of some CS and the not infrequent unsatisfactory nature of 1 preparation alone. Cancer (Cytopathol) 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.
There are morphological differences between ThinPrep (TP) and conventional smears (CS) in salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs), especially with respect to stromal appearance. Although CS appears to be preferable to TP in the diagnosis of pleomorphic adenoma overall, complementary use of both TP and CS preparations to achieve optimal diagnostic yield is recommended, given the artifacts of some CS and the not infrequent unsatisfactory nature of 1 preparation alone.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>17330273</pmid><doi>10.1002/cncr.22575</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0008-543X |
ispartof | Cancer, 2007-04, Vol.111 (2), p.123-129 |
issn | 0008-543X 1097-0142 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70395245 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Biopsy, Fine-Needle conventional smear Cytological Techniques fine‐needle aspiration FNA Humans Medical sciences salivary gland Salivary Gland Neoplasms - surgery Sensitivity and Specificity ThinPrep Tumors |
title | Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in salivary gland fine‐needle aspiration biopsies |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T03%3A03%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20ThinPrep%20and%20conventional%20smears%20in%20salivary%20gland%20fine%E2%80%90needle%20aspiration%20biopsies&rft.jtitle=Cancer&rft.au=Parfitt,%20Jeremy%20R.&rft.date=2007-04-25&rft.volume=111&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=123&rft.epage=129&rft.pages=123-129&rft.issn=0008-543X&rft.eissn=1097-0142&rft.coden=CANCAR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/cncr.22575&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70395245%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3575-55c55d9ce7b62d48c92fbb62d430ff2d9ea40a3067bfd9c966d430011cbf0f183%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70395245&rft_id=info:pmid/17330273&rfr_iscdi=true |