Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: A pilot study
Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: A pilot study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/dc.2033
复制
发表时间：
2001-09-01
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Al-Khafaji, B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michael, CW;McConnel, J;Al-Khafaji, B
ThinPrep(TP)和TriPath Prep(TRIP)是两种基于液体的细胞学制剂，可产生薄层细胞。这项研究比较了这些制剂在非妇科标本中的诊断准确性和不同的细胞形态变化。用这两种方法分别从10个尿液(3个尿路上皮癌和7个尿路上皮癌)、4个阳性浆液液和7个细针抽吸物(FNAs)中提取样本。FNAS分别代表桥本甲状腺炎(HT)、增生性胶体结节(HCN)、霍奇金淋巴瘤、脂肪肉瘤、软骨肉瘤、转移至淋巴结的鳞状细胞癌(SCC)和类癌。所有5名参与者都没有临床病史或组织学诊断的先验知识，他们回顾和解释了这些幻灯片。这两种技术都产生了清晰的背景，在尿液、浆液性液体和三种FNAs上同样准确。TRIP在四种FNA中的准确性略高：HCN和HT，其中胶体和淋巴细胞更好地代表；SCC，在淋巴细胞中更容易识别角蛋白和恶性细胞；类癌，更容易在TRIP上评估，因为细胞收缩较少，细胞在聚集体之间分散较多。茶多酚制剂有更多的细胞收缩，染色质更难评估。这两种技术都产生了人工的淋巴细胞聚集体，但TRIP在聚集体之间有更均匀分布的单细胞种群，使它们更容易评估异型性。TP产生了扁平的大片的碎裂，而TRIP包含了三维(3-D)配置的更大的分支片。TP产生了真正的单层细胞，这些细胞都分布在同一平面上，而在TRIP中，细胞分布在略有不同的平面上，需要经常聚焦观察平面。虽然这两种技术都可以用于诊断目的，但它们都引入了新的细胞形态变化，病理学家需要认识到这一点。在FNAs样本中，TRIP似乎优于TP，因为在FNAs标本中，结构和细胞完整性的保存是重要的考虑因素。(C)2001年Wiley-Liss，Inc.
ThinPrep (TP) and TriPath PREP (TriP) are two liquid-based cytologic preparations that produce a thin layer of cells. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and different cytomorphologic alterations produced by these preparations in nongynecologic specimens. Samples from 10 urines (3 urothelial carcinomas and 7 negative), 4 positive serous fluids, and 7 fine-needle aspirates (FNAs) were prepared by both techniques. FNAs represented one each of: Hashimoto's thyroiditis (HT), hyperplastic colloid nodule (HCN), Hodgkin's lymphoma, liposarcoma, chondrosarcoma, squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC) metastatic to the lymph node, and carcinoid tumor. All 5 participants, none of whom had prior knowledge of the clinical history or histologic diagnosis, reviewed and interpreted the slides.Both techniques produced a clean background and were equally accurate in urines, serous fluids, and three FNAs. TriP was slightly more accurate in four FNAs: HCN and HT where colloid and lymphocytes were better represented, SCC where keratin and malignant cells were more readily identified among lymphocytes, and carcinoid which was easier to evaluate on TriP due to less cellular shrinkage and more dispersion of cells between aggregates. TP preparations had more cell shrinkage, and the chromatin was harder to evaluate. Both techniques produced artificial aggregations of lymphocytes, but TriP had a more evenly dispersed single-cell population between aggregates, rendering them easier to evaluate for atypia. TP produced fragmentation of large sheets that were flattened, while TriP contained larger branching sheets in a three-dimensional (3-D) configuration. TP produced a true monolayer of cells that were all spread at the same plane, while in Trip the cells were spread at slightly different planes, requiring frequent focusing of the viewed plane.While both techniques are acceptable for diagnostic purposes, they both introduce new cytomorphologic alterations that pathologists need to recognize. Trip seems superior to TP in FNAs specimens where preservation of architecture and cellular integrity are important considerations. (C) 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.