J Lung Cancer.  2012 Dec;11(2):84-88. 10.6058/jlc.2012.11.2.84.

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

• An J
• Cho HY
• Chung DH
• Ha SY

• KMID: 2199834
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.6058/jlc.2012.11.2.84

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(R) in the bronchial washing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Both conventional cytology and ThinPrep(R) 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(R), respectively. The thirty eight cases in conventional cytology and 30 cases in ThinPrep(R) were diagnosed as "atypical." Malignant carcinoma was 54 cases and 82 cases in conventional cytology and ThinPrep(R), 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(R).
CONCLUSION
ThinPrep(R) (liquid-based cytology) revealed higher sensitivity and lower false negative rate than conventional cytology. ThinPrep(R) has many advantages to diagnose the lung cancer from bronchial washing cytology.

Keyword

Cytology; Lung; Lung neoplasms

MeSH Terms

Lung
Lung Neoplasms
Sensitivity and Specificity

Reference

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.