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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cancer 2007-04, Vol.111 (2), p.123-129
Main Authors: Parfitt, Jeremy R., McLachlin, C. Meg, Weir, Michele M.
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 &amp; 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&amp;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