Fig. 1Scan image of slides prepared via CellprepPlus® (A) and conventional smear (CS) (B). (A) CellprepPlus® liquid-based cytology has a thin, evenly distributed cell layer with a clean background in a well-defined circular area. (B) CS shows irregular distribution and overlapping of cells in all areas of the slide.
Fig. 2Different architectural patterns in CellprepPlus® (A) and conventional smear (CS) (B). (A) In CellprepPlus®, cells exists as ball-shaped clusters or singe cells. (B) CS preserves the papillary structure in the same specimen.
Fig. 3Cytomorphologic and nuclear features in CellprepPlus® (A) and conventional smear (CS) (B). CellprepPlus® (A) shows lager cells and more translucent nuclei than CS (B), making it easier to detect nuclear details.
Fig. 4Detection of malignant cells in urine. (A) Malignant cells are highly visible in CellprepPlus®, but not in conventional smear (CS) (B). The diagnosis by CS is inadequate due to low cellularity. (C) In CellprepPlus®, malignant cells are easily observed despite the bloody background, whereas, in CS (D), it is difficult to recognize malignant cells obscured by blood.
Table 1General cytological features from CellprepPlus® and conventional smear
Table 2Sample adequacy of urine using CellprepPlus® and conventional smear
Table 3Comparison of cytological diagnosis between CellprepPlus® and conventional smear
Table 4Correlation of cytological diagnosis and histological diagnosis between CellprepPlus® and conventional smear in urine
Table 5Comparison of histological diagnosis between CellprepPlus® and conventional smear