Tuberc Respir Dis.  2007 Jun;62(6):523-530.

A Comparison of Conventional Cytology and ThinPrep Cytology of Bronchial Washing Fluid in the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer

• Kim SH
• Kim EK
• Shi KD
• Kim JH
• Yoo JH
• Kim KS
• Kim JY
• Kim GI
• An HJ
• Lee JH

Abstract

Background
A ThinPrep(R) Processor was developed to overcome the limitations of conventional cytology and is widely used to diagnose various cancers. This study compared the diagnostic efficacy of conventional cytology for lung cancer with that of the ThinPrep(R) cytology using the bronchial washing fluid. Methods: The bronchial washing fluid of 790 patients from Jan. 2002 to Dec. 2006, who were suspected of gaving a lung malignancy, was evaluated. Both ThinPrep(R) and conventional cytology were performed for all specimens. Result: Four hundred forty-six men and 344 women were enrolled in this study, and 197 of them were diagnosed with cancer from either a bronchoscopic biopsy or a percutaneous needle aspiration biopsy. ThinPrep(R) cytology showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and false negative error rate of 71.1%, 98.0%, 92.1%, 91.1%, 8.9%, respectively. The conventional cytology showed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, nagative predictive value and false negative error rate of 57.9%, 98.0%, 90.5%, 87.5%, 12.5%, respectively. For central lesions, the sensitivity of conventional cytology and ThinPrep(R) were 70.1% and 82.8%, respectively. Conclusion: ThinPrep(R) cytology showed a higher sensitivity and lower false negative error rate than conventional cytology. This result was unaffected by the histological classification of lung cancer. Therefore, ThinPrep(R) cytology appears to be a useful method for increasing the detection rate of lung cancer in bronchial washing cytology test.

Keyword

Lung cancer; Bronchial washing; ThinPrep; Conventional cytology

MeSH Terms

Biopsy
Biopsy, Needle
Classification
Diagnosis*
Female
Humans
Lung Neoplasms*
Lung*
Male
Needles

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Rate of positivity according to the histologic type.

• 

  Figure 2 Adenocarcinoma (Papanicolaou stain, ×400). (A) Conventional cytologic preparation (B) ThinPrep® preparation.

• 

  Figure 3 Squamous cell carcinoma (Papanicolaou stain, ×400). (A) Conventional cytologic preparation (B) ThinPrep® preparation.

• 

  Figure 4 Small cell carcinoma (Papanicolaou stain, ×200). (A) Conventional cytologic preparation (B) ThinPrep® preparation.

Reference

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007. 57:43–66.

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

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

4. Cytyc Corporation. Operator's manual: Thin-Prep Processor. 1993. Marlborough, MA: Cytyc Corporation.

5. Fischler DF, Toddy SM. Nongynecologic cytology utilizing the ThinPrep Processor. Acta Cytol. 1996. 40:669–675.

6. Brambilla E, Travis WD, Colby TV, Corrin B, Shimosato Y. The new World Health Organization classification of lung tumours. Eur Respir J. 2001. 18:1059–1068.

7. Kurtycz DF, Hoerl HD. Thin-layer technology: tempered enthusiasm. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000. 23:1–5.

8. Hees K, Lebeau PB. Comparison of conventional and ThinPrep preparations of mucoid cytology samples. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995. 12:181–185.

9. Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: non-gynecologic evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997. 16:368–371.

10. Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield. ThinPrep vs. cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol. 1994. 38:33–36.

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

12. Hoerl HD, Schink J, Hartenbach E, Wagner JL, Kurtycz DF. Exfoliative cytology of primary poorly differentiated (small-cell) neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Thin-Prep material: a case report. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000. 23:14–18.

13. Michael CW, Hunter B. Interpretation of fine-needle aspirates processed by the ThinPrep technique: cytologic artifacts diagnostic pitfalls. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000. 23:6–13.

14. Davenport RD. Diagnostic value of crush artifact in cytologic specimens. Occurrence in small cell carcinoma of the lung. Acta Cytol. 1990. 34:502–504.

15. Rana DN, O'Donnell M, Malkin A, Griffin M. A comparative study: conventional preparation and ThinPrep 2000 in respiratory cytology. Cytopathology. 2001. 12:390–398.

16. Schreiber G, McCrory DC. Performance characteristics of different modalities for diagnosis of suspected lung cancer. Chest. 2003. 123:115S–128S.

17. Kish JK, Vallera DU, Ruby SG. Comparative study of nongynecologic processing by ThinPrep vs. conventional methodology: rationale for the use of ThinPrep(Abstract). Acta Cytol. 1993. 37:801.

18. Leung SW, Bedard YC. Immunocytochemical staining on ThinPrep processed smears. Mod Pathol. 1996. 9:304–306.

19. Tockman MS. Survival and mortality from lung cancer in a screened population. The Johns Hopkins Study. Chest. 1986. 89:324–325.

20. Fontana RS, Sanderson DR, Woolner LB, Taylor WF, Miller WE, Muhm JR. Lung cancer screening: the Mayo program. J Occup Med. 1986. 28:746–750.