Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-04.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
Comparison of Conventional Smear, Cell Block and Liquid-based Preparation in the Evaluation of Bronchial Washing Specimen in Lung Cancer Patients.
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

J Pathol Transl Med : Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Articles

Page Path
HOME > J Pathol Transl Med > Volume 45(3); 2011 > Article
Original Article Comparison of Conventional Smear, Cell Block and Liquid-based Preparation in the Evaluation of Bronchial Washing Specimen in Lung Cancer Patients.
Hyunee Yim, Hee Jae Joo, Young Bae Kim, Soon Won Hong
Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine 2011;45(3):296-302
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2011.45.3.296
1Department of Pathology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
2Department of Pathology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. soonwonh@yuhs.ac
  • 4,170 Views
  • 112 Download
  • 2 Crossref
  • 3 Scopus

BACKGROUND
The preparation of conventional smears (CS) from mucoid samples, despite mucolysis, can pose difficulties for cytotechnologists or cytopathologists. In recent years, liquid-based cytology (LBC) devices have been developed in attempts to improve the cytopreparation process. LBC improves both sample collection and sample preparation. Cell block preparations (CB) can be made from residual tissue fluids, and are a useful adjunct to smears.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed 3 preparations from 209 patients whose diagnosis was later confirmed via bronchoscopic biopsy, fine needle aspiration, gun biopsy or operation. Each case was categorized into one of three groups: "negative," "atypical or suspicious" and "malignant." RESULTS: When conflating the "atypical" and "malignant" categories into a "positive" category, the sensitivity of each preparation was 74.4% in LBC, 72.9% in CS, and 76.5% in CB preparations. Specificity was 98.7%, 94.7% and 98.7%, respectively. By combining LBC and CB, the sensitivity is 78.2%.
CONCLUSIONS
Among three different preparation methods, sensitivity is highest in the CB method. LBC has many advantages in evaluating cell morphology and by combining CB method, the sensitivity can be improved slightly. The application of all three methods may prove helpful when one or another method proves diagnostically inconclusive.

Related articles

J Pathol Transl Med : Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine