LGCmain
Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Ahead Of Print Login 
Users Online: 2525
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 73-77

Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology in the evaluation of abdominal masses


1 Department of Pathology, Sharda Institute of Medical Sciences, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Pathology, Army College of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Archna R Pahwa
A002, Raheja Atlantis, Sec 31, Gurugram - 122 001, Haryana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_363_19

Rights and Permissions

Context: Liquid-based cytology. Aims: Utility of liquid-based cytology (LBC) was compared to conventional smear cytology in ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates of abdominal masses. Settings and Design: This was a prospective comparative study conducted in collaboration with surgery and pediatrics surgery departments of our institute. Subjects and Methods: Thirty patients presenting with evidence of abdominal mass were enrolled for the study and underwent fine-needle aspiration cytology. The material was processed for the preparation of conventional smears and residual material was rinsed into cytolyt for LBC by Thin Prep method and into cell block fluid. The smears prepared from both the methods were compared by two independent and experienced pathologists for adequacy, cellularity, architectural pattern, cytoplasmic preservation, nuclear preservation, and background. Results: Cellularity was frequently higher in the conventional smears than on Thin Prep slides (P value = 0.025). Recognition of architecture was better on the conventional smears (P value = 0.001). Cytoplasm was better preserved on the conventional smears (P value = 0.001) but difference in the preservation of nuclear details was not statistically significant on slides prepared from both the techniques. The background of Thin Prep slides is significantly cleaner than direct smears (P value = 0.001). Non epithelial elements such as mucin and neurofibrillary tangles were better preserved on direct smears (P value = 0.001) but diagnostic accuracy of both the methodologies showed no statistically significant difference (P value = 0.226). Conclusions: The Thin Prep technique utilizes expensive equipment and reagents. It also generates certain morphological artefacts in slides with which a cytologist needs to get familiar. When used in isolation, it may not consistently provide any added advantage in the diagnosis of such lesions and should be used as an adjunct to conventional smears. It may be preferred in situations where material has to be transported for processing or is required for ancillary tests.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed124    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded34    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal