Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings

Momin T. Siddiqui, S. Tunc Gokaslan, M. Hossein Saboorian, Kelley Carrick, Raheela Ashfaq

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUNO. Bile duct brushing cytology is a common procedure for the exclusion of adenocarcinoma in the bile duct. The authors evaluated the use of Thin-Prep® (TP) to determine whether the information obtained is equivalent to that found with conventional smear cytology (CS). METHODS. Thirty-eight prospectively collected endoscope retrograde cholangio-pancreatography-guided bile duct brushing samples were split in the following manner. First, two to four CS were prepared and immediately spray-fixed or wet-fixed. Second, the remaining sample was rinsed in PreservCyt™ (Cytyc Corp., Boxborough, MA). In the laboratory, one TP slide was prepared from each sample. TP and CS were stained by routine Papanicolaou stain. For the current study, TP and CS were reviewed independently by two cytopathologists. The diagnoses made by the two methods were compared with the final histology. RESULTS. The cytologic diagnoses for both TP and CS were categorized into five main groups: 1) unsatisfactory, 2) negative, 3) reactive, 4) suspicious for malignancy, and 5) malignant. The diagnoses on the 38 TP bile duct brushings and CS were categorized as follows: 1) unsatisfactory - 2, 4; 2) negative - 7, 4; 3) reactive - 10, 14; 4) suspicious for malignancy - 9, 9; and 5) malignant - 10, 7, respectively. Histologic follow-up was available in 14 cases (reactive - 4, suspicious for malignancy - 1, and malignant - 9). The sensitivity was 77% for TP and 66% for CS. The specificity was 100% for both methods. CONCLUSIONS. The two methods described in the current study detected equivalent disease on bile duct brushings. TP was found to provide better preservation and cytologic detail. However, the diagnostic criteria may require modification.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)205-210
Number of pages6
JournalCancer
Volume99
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 25 2003

Fingerprint

Bile Ducts
Cell Biology
Carcinoma
Bile Duct Diseases
Neoplasms
Endoscopes
Histology
Adenocarcinoma
Coloring Agents

Keywords

  • Bile duct brushings
  • Conventional smear (CS)
  • Ductal adenocarcinoma
  • ThinPrep (TP)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings. / Siddiqui, Momin T.; Gokaslan, S. Tunc; Saboorian, M. Hossein; Carrick, Kelley; Ashfaq, Raheela.

In: Cancer, Vol. 99, No. 4, 25.08.2003, p. 205-210.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Siddiqui, Momin T. ; Gokaslan, S. Tunc ; Saboorian, M. Hossein ; Carrick, Kelley ; Ashfaq, Raheela. / Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings. In: Cancer. 2003 ; Vol. 99, No. 4. pp. 205-210.
@article{f3f1c2cd12924beeb1ffce1dcf2d11dd,
title = "Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings",
abstract = "BACKGROUNO. Bile duct brushing cytology is a common procedure for the exclusion of adenocarcinoma in the bile duct. The authors evaluated the use of Thin-Prep{\circledR} (TP) to determine whether the information obtained is equivalent to that found with conventional smear cytology (CS). METHODS. Thirty-eight prospectively collected endoscope retrograde cholangio-pancreatography-guided bile duct brushing samples were split in the following manner. First, two to four CS were prepared and immediately spray-fixed or wet-fixed. Second, the remaining sample was rinsed in PreservCyt™ (Cytyc Corp., Boxborough, MA). In the laboratory, one TP slide was prepared from each sample. TP and CS were stained by routine Papanicolaou stain. For the current study, TP and CS were reviewed independently by two cytopathologists. The diagnoses made by the two methods were compared with the final histology. RESULTS. The cytologic diagnoses for both TP and CS were categorized into five main groups: 1) unsatisfactory, 2) negative, 3) reactive, 4) suspicious for malignancy, and 5) malignant. The diagnoses on the 38 TP bile duct brushings and CS were categorized as follows: 1) unsatisfactory - 2, 4; 2) negative - 7, 4; 3) reactive - 10, 14; 4) suspicious for malignancy - 9, 9; and 5) malignant - 10, 7, respectively. Histologic follow-up was available in 14 cases (reactive - 4, suspicious for malignancy - 1, and malignant - 9). The sensitivity was 77{\%} for TP and 66{\%} for CS. The specificity was 100{\%} for both methods. CONCLUSIONS. The two methods described in the current study detected equivalent disease on bile duct brushings. TP was found to provide better preservation and cytologic detail. However, the diagnostic criteria may require modification.",
keywords = "Bile duct brushings, Conventional smear (CS), Ductal adenocarcinoma, ThinPrep (TP)",
author = "Siddiqui, {Momin T.} and Gokaslan, {S. Tunc} and Saboorian, {M. Hossein} and Kelley Carrick and Raheela Ashfaq",
year = "2003",
month = "8",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1002/cncr.11481",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "99",
pages = "205--210",
journal = "Cancer",
issn = "0008-543X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings

AU - Siddiqui, Momin T.

AU - Gokaslan, S. Tunc

AU - Saboorian, M. Hossein

AU - Carrick, Kelley

AU - Ashfaq, Raheela

PY - 2003/8/25

Y1 - 2003/8/25

N2 - BACKGROUNO. Bile duct brushing cytology is a common procedure for the exclusion of adenocarcinoma in the bile duct. The authors evaluated the use of Thin-Prep® (TP) to determine whether the information obtained is equivalent to that found with conventional smear cytology (CS). METHODS. Thirty-eight prospectively collected endoscope retrograde cholangio-pancreatography-guided bile duct brushing samples were split in the following manner. First, two to four CS were prepared and immediately spray-fixed or wet-fixed. Second, the remaining sample was rinsed in PreservCyt™ (Cytyc Corp., Boxborough, MA). In the laboratory, one TP slide was prepared from each sample. TP and CS were stained by routine Papanicolaou stain. For the current study, TP and CS were reviewed independently by two cytopathologists. The diagnoses made by the two methods were compared with the final histology. RESULTS. The cytologic diagnoses for both TP and CS were categorized into five main groups: 1) unsatisfactory, 2) negative, 3) reactive, 4) suspicious for malignancy, and 5) malignant. The diagnoses on the 38 TP bile duct brushings and CS were categorized as follows: 1) unsatisfactory - 2, 4; 2) negative - 7, 4; 3) reactive - 10, 14; 4) suspicious for malignancy - 9, 9; and 5) malignant - 10, 7, respectively. Histologic follow-up was available in 14 cases (reactive - 4, suspicious for malignancy - 1, and malignant - 9). The sensitivity was 77% for TP and 66% for CS. The specificity was 100% for both methods. CONCLUSIONS. The two methods described in the current study detected equivalent disease on bile duct brushings. TP was found to provide better preservation and cytologic detail. However, the diagnostic criteria may require modification.

AB - BACKGROUNO. Bile duct brushing cytology is a common procedure for the exclusion of adenocarcinoma in the bile duct. The authors evaluated the use of Thin-Prep® (TP) to determine whether the information obtained is equivalent to that found with conventional smear cytology (CS). METHODS. Thirty-eight prospectively collected endoscope retrograde cholangio-pancreatography-guided bile duct brushing samples were split in the following manner. First, two to four CS were prepared and immediately spray-fixed or wet-fixed. Second, the remaining sample was rinsed in PreservCyt™ (Cytyc Corp., Boxborough, MA). In the laboratory, one TP slide was prepared from each sample. TP and CS were stained by routine Papanicolaou stain. For the current study, TP and CS were reviewed independently by two cytopathologists. The diagnoses made by the two methods were compared with the final histology. RESULTS. The cytologic diagnoses for both TP and CS were categorized into five main groups: 1) unsatisfactory, 2) negative, 3) reactive, 4) suspicious for malignancy, and 5) malignant. The diagnoses on the 38 TP bile duct brushings and CS were categorized as follows: 1) unsatisfactory - 2, 4; 2) negative - 7, 4; 3) reactive - 10, 14; 4) suspicious for malignancy - 9, 9; and 5) malignant - 10, 7, respectively. Histologic follow-up was available in 14 cases (reactive - 4, suspicious for malignancy - 1, and malignant - 9). The sensitivity was 77% for TP and 66% for CS. The specificity was 100% for both methods. CONCLUSIONS. The two methods described in the current study detected equivalent disease on bile duct brushings. TP was found to provide better preservation and cytologic detail. However, the diagnostic criteria may require modification.

KW - Bile duct brushings

KW - Conventional smear (CS)

KW - Ductal adenocarcinoma

KW - ThinPrep (TP)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0042973992&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0042973992&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/cncr.11481

DO - 10.1002/cncr.11481

M3 - Article

C2 - 12925981

AN - SCOPUS:0042973992

VL - 99

SP - 205

EP - 210

JO - Cancer

JF - Cancer

SN - 0008-543X

IS - 4

ER -