Evaluation of Urine Cytology in Urothelial Carcinoma Patients: A Comparison of CellprepPlus® Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: Urine cytology is an important test in the screening of urothlelial neoplasms. The conventional smear (CS) method of testing urine samples has a low sensitivity, approximately 50% result accuracy for detecting urothelial carcinomas, while liquid-based cytology (LBC) has much improved diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The aim of this study was to compare the morphologic features and diagnostic efficacy of CellprepPlus® LBC with those of CS for urine cytology. Methods: A total of 713 cases of urine specimens collected from November 2009 to September 2010 were included. All specimens were divided equally for the preparation of CellprepPlus® LBC and CS for each case. Results: CellprepPlus® revealed more cellularity, a cleaner background and better cytomorphologic features, but it showed a less intact architectural pattern compared to that of CS. Of the 88 histologically confirmed cases, the diagnostic sensitivity for CellprepPlus® was 50% and higher than the 37.5% for CS. The specificity of both preparations was 100%. Conclusions: The CellprepPlus® showed an improved quality of slides and provided better diagnostic accuracy, thus CellprepPlus® could be a first-line screening tool in urinary tract cytology.
Abstract
Background: Urine cytology is an important test in the screening of urothlelial neoplasms. The conventional smear (CS) method of testing urine samples has a low sensitivity, approximately 50% result accuracy for detecting urothelial carcinomas, while liquid-based cytology (LBC) has much improved diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The aim of this study was to compare the morphologic features and diagnostic efficacy of CellprepPlus® LBC with those of CS for urine cytology. Methods: A total of 713 cases of urine specimens collected from November 2009 to September 2010 were included. All specimens were divided equally for the preparation of CellprepPlus® LBC and CS for each case. Results: CellprepPlus® revealed more cellularity, a cleaner background and better cytomorphologic features, but it showed a less intact architectural pattern compared to that of CS. Of the 88 histologically confirmed cases, the diagnostic sensitivity for CellprepPlus® was 50% and higher than the 37.5% for CS. The specificity of both preparations was 100%. Conclusions: The CellprepPlus® showed an improved quality of slides and provided better diagnostic accuracy, thus CellprepPlus® could be a first-line screening tool in urinary tract cytology.
참고문헌 (10)
- Eble JN, "World Health Organization classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs" (2005), IARC Press
- 김한겸, "형태 계측학적 분석과 ThinPrep®액상 소변세포검사를 이용한 악성 요로상피 세포 검출", 대한세포병리학회지, 19(2), pp.136~143 (2008), 대한세포병리학회
- Hoda RS, "Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artifacts", Diagn Cytopathol, 35, pp.621~634 (2007)
- Lu DY, "High-grade urothelial carcinoma: comparison of SurePathTM liquid-based processing with cytospin processing", Diagn Cytopathol, 37, pp.16~20 (2009)
- 구지혜, "초음파 유도 갑상샘 세침흡인세포검사에서 CellprepPlus® 액상세포검사: 고식적 도말검사와 CellprepPlus® 액상세포검사와의 비교", The Korean Journal of Pathology, 45(2), pp.182~187 (2011), 대한병리학회
- 구지혜, "체액 세포검사에서 고식적 세포도말검사와 CellprepPlus 액상세포검사의 세포학적 평가 비교", The Korean Journal of Pathology, 43(5), pp.448~452 (2009), 대한병리학회
- 이선, "요 세포 검사의 진단적 가치; 액상세포검사와 고식적 방법의 비교", 대한세포병리학회지, 18(2), pp.119~125 (2007), 대한세포병리학회
- Kim H, "A pilot comparative study: Cellprep®Plus LBC system and SurePathTM in cervicovaginal and urine cytology", In: The 21st Annual Fall Meetings of the Korean Society for Cytopathology, 52 (2009), The Korean Society for Cytopathology
- 고재수, "자궁경부, 체액 및 소변의 탈락 세포진 검사에서 CellPrep？ 액상세포검사의 세포학적 평가 -ThinPrep？과 비교분석-", 대한세포병리학회지, 18(1), pp.29~35 (2007), 대한세포병리학회
- 임현이, "폐암 환자의 기관지 세척 검체에 대한 고식적 세포도말검사, 세포 블록, 액상세포검사의 비교", The Korean Journal of Pathology, 45(3), pp.296~302 (2011), 대한병리학회