A Comparison of Different Transfer Techniques in Evaluating Specimen Adequacy in FNAB: An Unexplored Topic

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Mehmet Karagülle, Fatma Zeynep Arslan, Burcu Ozcan, Arzu Algun Gedik
{"title":"A Comparison of Different Transfer Techniques in Evaluating Specimen Adequacy in FNAB: An Unexplored Topic","authors":"Mehmet Karagülle,&nbsp;Fatma Zeynep Arslan,&nbsp;Burcu Ozcan,&nbsp;Arzu Algun Gedik","doi":"10.1002/dc.25458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>This study compared two conventional smear methods during FNAB: The method where the green part of the syringe is touched to the slide (Technique 1) and the method where the contents are rapidly sprayed (Technique 2). We investigated differences in specimen adequacy, diagnostic outcomes, and variations among pathological subgroups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>FNAB was performed on 128 lesions from 119 patients, and the samples were classified according to the Bethesda System. The two transfer techniques were compared in terms of cell count and diagnostic results.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of the 128 lesions, 93 were diagnosed as adenomatous nodules. No significant difference was found in the nondiagnostic result rates between the methods. The p-value was found to be 0.65. The average cell count in Technique 1 was 1.95 (min: 0, max: 3+, SD: 1.03), while in Technique 2 it was 1.91 (min: 0, max: 3+, SD: 1.07). Although Technique 1 resulted in a slightly higher positive cell detection, the two techniques were not superior to each other in terms of cell count. The p-value was found to be 0.87. When both techniques were used together, more diagnoses could be made in more patients compared to when each technique was used separately. However, statistically, the combined use of both techniques was not superior to Technique 1 (<i>p</i> = 0.16) or Technique 2 (<i>p</i> = 0.083).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Both techniques showed similar nondiagnostic rates. Technique 1 resulted in a slight increase in the average positive cell count, whereas Technique 2 may be preferred due to its simplicity and safety. It was also found that neither technique provided a clear superiority over the other, and using both techniques together was not superior to either Technique 1 or Technique 2. In determining standard FNAB procedures and improving diagnostic accuracy, factors such as nodule characteristics and needle caliber, along with smear techniques, should also be considered. Larger-scale studies are necessary to validate these findings and improve FNAB practices.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11349,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic Cytopathology","volume":"53 5","pages":"251-255"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dc.25458","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

This study compared two conventional smear methods during FNAB: The method where the green part of the syringe is touched to the slide (Technique 1) and the method where the contents are rapidly sprayed (Technique 2). We investigated differences in specimen adequacy, diagnostic outcomes, and variations among pathological subgroups.

Methods

FNAB was performed on 128 lesions from 119 patients, and the samples were classified according to the Bethesda System. The two transfer techniques were compared in terms of cell count and diagnostic results.

Results

Of the 128 lesions, 93 were diagnosed as adenomatous nodules. No significant difference was found in the nondiagnostic result rates between the methods. The p-value was found to be 0.65. The average cell count in Technique 1 was 1.95 (min: 0, max: 3+, SD: 1.03), while in Technique 2 it was 1.91 (min: 0, max: 3+, SD: 1.07). Although Technique 1 resulted in a slightly higher positive cell detection, the two techniques were not superior to each other in terms of cell count. The p-value was found to be 0.87. When both techniques were used together, more diagnoses could be made in more patients compared to when each technique was used separately. However, statistically, the combined use of both techniques was not superior to Technique 1 (p = 0.16) or Technique 2 (p = 0.083).

Conclusion

Both techniques showed similar nondiagnostic rates. Technique 1 resulted in a slight increase in the average positive cell count, whereas Technique 2 may be preferred due to its simplicity and safety. It was also found that neither technique provided a clear superiority over the other, and using both techniques together was not superior to either Technique 1 or Technique 2. In determining standard FNAB procedures and improving diagnostic accuracy, factors such as nodule characteristics and needle caliber, along with smear techniques, should also be considered. Larger-scale studies are necessary to validate these findings and improve FNAB practices.

评价FNAB标本充分性的不同转移技术的比较:一个未探索的话题。
本研究比较了FNAB期间的两种传统涂片方法:将注射器的绿色部分接触载玻片的方法(技术1)和快速喷射内容物的方法(技术2)。我们研究了标本充分性、诊断结果和病理亚组之间的差异。方法:对119例患者的128个病灶行FNAB,按Bethesda系统分类。比较两种转移方法的细胞计数和诊断结果。结果:128例病变中93例诊断为腺瘤性结节。两种方法的非诊断性检出率无显著差异。p值为0.65。技术1的平均细胞数为1.95 (min: 0, max: 3+, SD: 1.03),技术2的平均细胞数为1.91 (min: 0, max: 3+, SD: 1.07)。虽然技术1的阳性细胞检出率略高,但两种技术在细胞计数方面并不具有优势。p值为0.87。当两种技术一起使用时,与单独使用每种技术相比,可以在更多的患者中做出更多的诊断。然而,在统计学上,两种技术的联合使用并不优于技术1 (p = 0.16)或技术2 (p = 0.083)。结论:两种技术的漏诊率相似。技术1导致平均阳性细胞计数略有增加,而技术2由于其简单和安全可能是首选。研究还发现,两种技术都没有明显的优势,同时使用两种技术并不优于技术1或技术2。在确定标准FNAB程序和提高诊断准确性时,还应考虑结节特征和针径以及涂片技术等因素。有必要进行更大规模的研究来验证这些发现并改进FNAB实践。
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
Diagnostic Cytopathology
Diagnostic Cytopathology 医学-病理学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
163
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Diagnostic Cytopathology is intended to provide a forum for the exchange of information in the field of cytopathology, with special emphasis on the practical, clinical aspects of the discipline. The editors invite original scientific articles, as well as special review articles, feature articles, and letters to the editor, from laboratory professionals engaged in the practice of cytopathology. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the basis of scientific merit, practical significance, and suitability for publication in a journal dedicated to this discipline. Original articles can be considered only with the understanding that they have never been published before and that they have not been submitted for simultaneous review to another publication.
×
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