Comparison of ThinPrep Cytology and Conventional Cytology in Bronchial Washing for Lung Cancer

Jungsuk An; Hyun Yee Cho; Dong Hae Chung; Seung Yeon Ha

doi:10.6058/jlc.2012.11.2.84

Journal List > J Lung Cancer > v.11(2) > 1050648

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

An, Cho, Chung, and Ha: Comparison of ThinPrep Cytology and Conventional Cytology in Bronchial Washing for Lung Cancer

Original Article

Journal of Lung Cancer

Journal of Lung Cancer 2012; 11(2): 84-88.

Published online: 27 December 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6058/jlc.2012.11.2.84

Comparison of ThinPrep Cytology and Conventional Cytology in Bronchial Washing for Lung Cancer

Jungsuk An, M.D., M.S., Hyun Yee Cho, M.D., Ph.D., Dong Hae Chung, M.D., Ph.D., Seung Yeon Ha, M.D., Ph.D.

Department of Pathology, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Incheon, Korea.

Address for correspondence: Seung Yeon Ha, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Pathology, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Gachon University of Medicine and Science, 21, Namdong-daero 774beon-gil, Namdong-gu, Incheon 405-760, Korea. Tel: 82-32-460-3078, Fax: 82-32-460-2394, syha@gilhospital.com

Received 22 November 2012 Revised 10 December 2012 Accepted 13 December 2012

Abstract

Purpose

Liquid-based cytology have been developed and currently used to overcome the limitation of conventional cytology. This study aims to evaluate the differences between conventional cytology and ThinPrep® in the bronchial washing.

Materials and Methods

Both conventional cytology and ThinPrep® were performed in the 2,551 cases of bronchial washing, of which, 116 cases of histologically diagnosed as lung cancer were evaluated.

Results

Among the 116 cases, 23 and 4 cases were negative in conventional cytology and ThinPrep®, respectively. The thirty eight cases in conventional cytology and 30 cases in ThinPrep® were diagnosed as "atypical." Malignant carcinoma was 54 cases and 82 cases in conventional cytology and ThinPrep®, respectively. The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity and specificity were 98.94%, 99.06%, 80.17%, and 99.96%, respectively in conventional cytology. Those were 99.12%, 99.83%, 96.55% and 99.96%, respectively in ThinPrep®.

Conclusion

ThinPrep® (liquid-based cytology) revealed higher sensitivity and lower false negative rate than conventional cytology. ThinPrep® has many advantages to diagnose the lung cancer from bronchial washing cytology.

Keywords: Cytology, Lung, Lung neoplasms

Figures and Tables

Table 1

Comparison Cytological Cellularity between Cytospin and ThinPrep®

Table 2

Histologic and Cytological Correlation

LCNEC: large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma.

Table 3

Correlation of Histology and Conventional Cytology

^*Poorly differentiated carcinoma and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma.

Table 4

Correlation of Histology and ThinPrep® Cytology

^*Poorly differentiated carcinoma and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma.

Table 5

Comparative Analysis of ThinPrep® for Conventional Cytology Diagnosed as 'Atypical'

Table 6

Comparative Analysis of Conventional Cytology for ThinPrep® Cytology Diagnosed as 'Atypical'

References

1. Lee CT. Epidemiology of lung cancer in Korea. Cancer Res Treat. 2002. 34:3–5.

2. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997. 90:278–284.

3. Hoda RS. Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artifacts. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007. 35:621–634.

4. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010. 60:277–300.

5. Kini SR. Color atlas of differential diagnosis in exfoliative and aspiration cytopathology. 2011. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;191–293.

6. Linder J. Recent advances in thin-layer cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 1998. 18:24–32.

7. Compton J, Boyle E, Barck M, Jicha D, Reale FR. Sputum cytology: a comparison of two methods, the conventional cytological preparation and the Thin-Prep Processor [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 1993. 37:797.

8. Miller FS, Pizzo CJ. Cytospin vs. thin-layer technology: nongynecologic evaluation [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 1993. 37:798.

9. Burroughs FN, Erozan YS. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparation in alimentary tract cytopathology [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 1993. 37:801.

10. Kish JK, Vallera DU, Ruby SG, et al. Comparative study of nongynecologic processing by ThinPrep vs. conventional methodology: rationale for the use of ThinPrep [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 1993. 37:801.

11. Papillo JL, Lee KR, Manna EA. Clinical evaluation of the ThinPrep method for the preparation of nongynecologic material. Acta Cytol. 1992. 36:651–652.

12. Cytye Corporation. Operator's manual: Thin-Prep Processor. 1993. Marlborough: Cytye Corporation.

13. Kim SH, Kim EK, Shi KD, et al. A comparison of conventional cytology and ThinPrep cytology of bronchial washing fluid in the diagnosis of lung cancer. Tuberc Respir Dis. 2007. 62:523–530.

14. Lee JH, Yang JK, Jung IB, et al. Comparison of Thinprep (liquid-based cytology) and conventional cytology: abnormal lesion on bronchoscopy. Tuberc Respir Dis. 2006. 61:547–553.

TOOLS

Similar articles