THE ACCURACY OF LIQUID BASE PAP SMEAR VS CONVENTIONAL PAP SMEAR CYTOLOGY

K. Alama, A. Abakar
{"title":"THE ACCURACY OF LIQUID BASE PAP SMEAR VS CONVENTIONAL PAP SMEAR CYTOLOGY","authors":"K. Alama, A. Abakar","doi":"10.47672/EJHS.414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Liquid base versus Conventional smears (CS). The specific objective was to evaluate and compare efficacy liquid base cytology with conventional cytology (CS) as a screening tool and to assess the quality of immunohistochemical stain in conventional smears. A prospective study including 100 cervical samples over a period of six month. Split sample was obtained using cervex-brush. CS was prepared from the brush and the brush head was suspended in the LBC vial and processed by thin prep 5000 machine. The smears were stained with Pap stain and extra five conventional and thin prep slides prepared and stained with immunomarker. Results showed that there were 4.0% unsatisfactory (U/S) cases in CS and 1.0% in LBC; the main cause was ranging between obscuring blood and inflammation in CS and low squamous cellularity in LBC. About 5% split samples had epithelial abnormalities both in CS and LBC (3% atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS), devided between LBS 2% while CS1%.Low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) 2%, devided between LBC 1% and CS 1%. Infections as Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) and spores of candida species, 1% and 2% respectively detected only in LBC smear and missed in CS preparations of the same samples, considering 2-3 minutes for LBC screening and 5-6 minutes for CS screening following the international standards. Conventional smears did not appear to confer a cytomorphological advantage and has a lower diagnostic accuracy using IHC. The sensitivity of Thin Prep was significantly higher than that of CS due to cellular clumps and presence of marked inflammatory cells and blood which compete other epithelial cellular elements in staining affinity in addition to the length of the smear which need large volume of stains to cover the whole area. While the confined area of thin prep smear and homogenous cellular distribution support the advantages of thin prep over the conventional smear when using IHC stain. The study concluded that LBC technique leads to significant reduction of U/S rate. LBC samples offered better clarity, uniform spread of smears, less time for screening and better handling of hemorrhagic and inflammatory samples. In addition to feasibility to do further special stains and HPV tests. LBC had equivalent sensitivity and specificity to CS.","PeriodicalId":224837,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Sciences","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47672/EJHS.414","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The main aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Liquid base versus Conventional smears (CS). The specific objective was to evaluate and compare efficacy liquid base cytology with conventional cytology (CS) as a screening tool and to assess the quality of immunohistochemical stain in conventional smears. A prospective study including 100 cervical samples over a period of six month. Split sample was obtained using cervex-brush. CS was prepared from the brush and the brush head was suspended in the LBC vial and processed by thin prep 5000 machine. The smears were stained with Pap stain and extra five conventional and thin prep slides prepared and stained with immunomarker. Results showed that there were 4.0% unsatisfactory (U/S) cases in CS and 1.0% in LBC; the main cause was ranging between obscuring blood and inflammation in CS and low squamous cellularity in LBC. About 5% split samples had epithelial abnormalities both in CS and LBC (3% atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS), devided between LBS 2% while CS1%.Low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) 2%, devided between LBC 1% and CS 1%. Infections as Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) and spores of candida species, 1% and 2% respectively detected only in LBC smear and missed in CS preparations of the same samples, considering 2-3 minutes for LBC screening and 5-6 minutes for CS screening following the international standards. Conventional smears did not appear to confer a cytomorphological advantage and has a lower diagnostic accuracy using IHC. The sensitivity of Thin Prep was significantly higher than that of CS due to cellular clumps and presence of marked inflammatory cells and blood which compete other epithelial cellular elements in staining affinity in addition to the length of the smear which need large volume of stains to cover the whole area. While the confined area of thin prep smear and homogenous cellular distribution support the advantages of thin prep over the conventional smear when using IHC stain. The study concluded that LBC technique leads to significant reduction of U/S rate. LBC samples offered better clarity, uniform spread of smears, less time for screening and better handling of hemorrhagic and inflammatory samples. In addition to feasibility to do further special stains and HPV tests. LBC had equivalent sensitivity and specificity to CS.
液体基巴氏涂片与常规巴氏涂片细胞学的准确性
本研究的主要目的是评估液基涂片与常规涂片(CS)的诊断准确性。具体目的是评估和比较液基细胞学与常规细胞学(CS)作为筛查工具的有效性,并评估常规涂片中免疫组织化学染色的质量。一项前瞻性研究,包括100个宫颈样本,为期6个月。用鹿牙刷获得分裂样品。用刷子制备CS,刷头悬浮在LBC瓶中,用薄制5000机进行加工。涂片用巴氏涂片染色,另外制备5片常规和薄片,用免疫标记物染色。结果:CS不满意(U/S)为4.0%,LBC为1.0%;CS的主要原因是血液和炎症模糊,LBC的主要原因是鳞状细胞密度低。约5%的分裂样本在CS和LBC中都有上皮异常(3%的非典型鳞状细胞不确定意义(ASCUS), LBS占2%,CS1%。低级别鳞状上皮内病变(LSIL) 2%,分为LBC 1%和CS 1%。阴道毛滴虫(Trichomonas vaginalis, TV)和念珠菌孢子感染,仅在LBC涂片中检出1%和2%,在相同样品的CS制剂中未检出,考虑到LBC筛查时间为2-3分钟,CS筛查时间为5-6分钟,按照国际标准。传统涂片似乎没有赋予细胞形态学优势,并且使用免疫组化具有较低的诊断准确性。Thin Prep的敏感性明显高于CS,这是由于细胞团块和存在明显的炎症细胞和血液,这些炎症细胞和血液在染色亲和力上与其他上皮细胞成分竞争,此外涂片的长度需要大量的染色来覆盖整个区域。而薄准备涂片的有限区域和均匀的细胞分布支持薄准备优于传统涂片时,使用免疫组化染色。研究表明,LBC技术可显著降低U/S率。LBC样本清晰度更高,涂片分布均匀,筛查时间更短,处理出血性和炎症性样本更好。除了可行性做进一步的特殊染色和HPV检测。LBC对CS具有相当的敏感性和特异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信