Conventional liquid-based techniques versus Cytyc Thinprep® processing of urinary samples: a qualitative approach

BMC Clinical Pathology - Tập 5 Số 1 - 2005
Éric Piaton1, J Faÿnel2, Karine Hutin2, Marie-Claude Ranchin2, Michéle Cottier3
1INSERM U.407/Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Faculté de Médecine Lyon Sud, 69495, Pierre Bénite Cedex, France
2Laboratoire de Cytopathologie, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Place d'Arsonval, 69437, Lyon Cedex 03, France
3Laboratoire d'Histologie, CHRU de Saint-Etienne, Hôpital Nord, 42055, Saint-Etienne Cedex 2, France

Tóm tắt

Abstract Background The aim of our study was to objectively compare Cytyc Thinprep® and other methods of obtaining thin layer cytologic preparations (cytocentrifugation, direct smearing and Millipore® filtration) in urine cytopathology. Methods Thinprep slides were compared to direct smears in 79 cases. Cytocentrifugation carried out with the Thermo Shandon Cytospin® 4 was compared to Thinprep in 106 cases, and comparison with Millipore filtration followed by blotting was obtained in 22 cases. Quality was assessed by scoring cellularity, fixation, red blood cells, leukocytes and nuclear abnormalities. Results The data show that 1) smearing allows good overall results to be obtained, 2) Cytocentrifugation with reusable TPX® chambers should be avoided, 3) Cytocentrifugation using disposable chambers (Cytofunnels® or Megafunnel® chambers) gives excellent results equalling or surpassing Thinprep and 4) Millipore filtration should be avoided, owing to its poor global quality. Despite differences in quality, the techniques studied have no impact on the diagnostic accuracy as evaluated by the rate of abnormalities. Conclusion We conclude that conventional methods such as cytocentrifugation remain the most appropriate ones for current treatment of urinary samples. Cytyc Thinprep processing, owing to its cost, could be used essentially for cytology-based molecular studies.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Sözen S, Eskicorabci S, Özen H: Urinary markers for urothelial cancer. BJU Int. 2003, 92: 531-533. 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2003.04427.x.

Saad A, Hanbury DC, McNicholas TA, Boustead GB, Woodman AC: The early detection and diagnosis of bladder cancer: a critical review of the options. Eur Urol. 2001, 39: 619-633. 10.1159/000052519.

Bastacky S, Ibrahim S, Wilczinski SP, Murphy WM: The accuracy of urinary cytology in daily practice. Cancer. 1999, 87: 118-128. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990625)87:3<118::AID-CNCR4>3.0.CO;2-N.

Pondo A, Cobbs BC, Gupta PK: Use of Thinprep in urine cytology (Abstract). Acta Cytol. 1992, 37: 584-

Papillo JL, Lapen D: Cell yield. Thinprep vs. cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol. 1992, 38: 33-36.

Anagnostopoulou I, Spathi H, Rammou-Kinnia R, Karakitsos P, Gianni I, Georgoulakis J, Kittas C: Comparative study of Thinprep and conventional voided urine cytology (Abstract). Cytopathology. 2000, 11: 373-

Wright RG, Halford JA: Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology. 2001, 12: 306-313. 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2001.00341.x.

Mouriquand J: Differential nucleolar staining affinity with a modified Papanicolaou procedure. Stain Technol. 1981, 56: 215-219.

Murphy WM: Current status of urinary cytology in the evaluation of bladder neoplasms. Hum Pathol. 1990, 21: 886-896. 10.1016/0046-8177(90)90171-Z.

Layfield LJ, Elsheikh TM, Fili A, Nayar R, Shidham V: Review of the state of the art and recommendations of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for urinary cytology procedures and reporting. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004, 30: 24-30. 10.1002/dc.10401.

Barrett DL, King EB: Comparison of cellular recovery rates and morphologic detail obtained using membrane filter and cytocentrifuge techniques. Acta Cytol. 1976, 20: 174-180.

Marwah S, Devlin D, Dekker A: A comparative cytologic study of 100 urine specimens processed by the slide centrifuge and membrane filter technique. Acta Cytol. 1978, 22: 431-434.

Piaton E, Faÿnel J, Ranchin MC, Hutin K: Comparative study of conventional techniques and liquid-based processing of urine samples for the evaluation of bladder neoplasms (Abstract). Acta Cytol. 2002, 46: 207-

Beech DP, Allbee A, Atanasoff PE, Brahm CL, Moore TL, Bell DA: A comparison of voided urine samples processed by the Cytyc Thinprep processor and the Shandon Cytospin II (Abstract). Acta Cytol. 1992, 36: 583-

Goellner JR, Plagge AM, St Germain KM, Johnson DA, McClain SL, Moltaji H: Cytyc Thinprep processor vs. polycarbonate membrane filtration: a comparative study in urine cytology (Abstract). Acta Cytol. 1993, 37: 800-

Nassar H, Ali-Fehmi R, Madan S: Use of Thinprep monolayer technique and cytospin preparation in urine cytology: a comparative analysis. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003, 28: 115-118. 10.1002/dc.10245.

Albright CD, Frost JK: Centrifugal separation of carcinoma or atypical cells in voided urine. Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol. 1992, 62: 45-53.

Zardawi IM, Duncan J: Evaluation of a centrifuge method and thin-layer preparation in urine cytology. Acta Cytol. 2003, 47: 1038-1042.

Piaton E, Hutin K, Faÿnel J, Ranchin MC, Cottier M: Cost-efficiency analysis of modern cytocentrifugation methods versus liquid-based (Cytyc Thinprep) treatment of urinary samples. J Clin Pathol. 2004, 57: 1208-1212. 10.1136/jcp.2004.018648.

Tisserand P, Fouquet C, Marck V, Mallard C, Fabre M, Vielh P, Soussi T: Thinprep-processed fine-needle samples of breast are effective material for RNA- and DNA-based molecular diagnosis. Application to p53 mutation analysis. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2003, 99: 223-232.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

BMC Clinical Pathology

Tập 5 Số 1

Thông tin tác giả