新开发的WellPrep®和SurePath™在浆液积液细胞学诊断性能和细胞形态学特征的比较分析

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Journal of Cytology Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-29 DOI:10.4103/joc.joc_16_25
Ji Eun Choi, Min-Sun Jin, Da Sol Kim, Ilias P Nikas, Han Suk Ryu
{"title":"新开发的WellPrep®和SurePath™在浆液积液细胞学诊断性能和细胞形态学特征的比较分析","authors":"Ji Eun Choi, Min-Sun Jin, Da Sol Kim, Ilias P Nikas, Han Suk Ryu","doi":"10.4103/joc.joc_16_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Whereas liquid-based cytology (LBC) is often the preferred method in gynecological and non-gynecological cytopathology compared to conventional preparation, it does have several limitations. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and specific cytomorphologic characteristics of the newly developed WellPrep<sup>®</sup> (WP) in comparison with SurePath™ (SP) in serous effusion cytology.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 178 body cavity effusion samples were collected, which were divided and further processed using both WP and SP methods. The LBC slides of the cases were independently evaluated regarding their cytomorphologic features by three pathologists. Among them, the diagnosis of 66 cases (42.6%) was confirmed as non-neoplastic or malignant using a combination of histopathological, clinical, and/or radiological follow-up. Statistical analysis was conducted to assess the diagnostic concordance and differences in selected cytomorphologic features between the two LBC methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>WP demonstrated diagnostic performance comparable to SP, with a concordance rate of 75.7% (kappa = 0.659; Spearman's <i>ρ</i> = 0.920). Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy measures tested were not different between WP and SP. No case processed with WP or SP showed suboptimal slide quality. For cytomorphologic features, cellular degeneration was less frequently observed in WP than in SP. SP showed more even cellular distribution and better preservation of architectural patterns. SP also more frequently exhibited prominent nucleoli, cytoplasmic vacuoles, and signet ring cell features.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WP offers comparable slide quality and diagnostic accuracy with SP in serous effusion cytopathology. However, more research using larger patient cohorts would provide more evidence regarding WP.</p>","PeriodicalId":50217,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cytology","volume":"42 3","pages":"142-150"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435873/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Performance and Cytomorphologic Features Between Newly Developed WellPrep<sup>®</sup> and SurePath™ in Serous Effusion Cytology.\",\"authors\":\"Ji Eun Choi, Min-Sun Jin, Da Sol Kim, Ilias P Nikas, Han Suk Ryu\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/joc.joc_16_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Whereas liquid-based cytology (LBC) is often the preferred method in gynecological and non-gynecological cytopathology compared to conventional preparation, it does have several limitations. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and specific cytomorphologic characteristics of the newly developed WellPrep<sup>®</sup> (WP) in comparison with SurePath™ (SP) in serous effusion cytology.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 178 body cavity effusion samples were collected, which were divided and further processed using both WP and SP methods. The LBC slides of the cases were independently evaluated regarding their cytomorphologic features by three pathologists. Among them, the diagnosis of 66 cases (42.6%) was confirmed as non-neoplastic or malignant using a combination of histopathological, clinical, and/or radiological follow-up. Statistical analysis was conducted to assess the diagnostic concordance and differences in selected cytomorphologic features between the two LBC methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>WP demonstrated diagnostic performance comparable to SP, with a concordance rate of 75.7% (kappa = 0.659; Spearman's <i>ρ</i> = 0.920). Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy measures tested were not different between WP and SP. No case processed with WP or SP showed suboptimal slide quality. For cytomorphologic features, cellular degeneration was less frequently observed in WP than in SP. SP showed more even cellular distribution and better preservation of architectural patterns. SP also more frequently exhibited prominent nucleoli, cytoplasmic vacuoles, and signet ring cell features.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WP offers comparable slide quality and diagnostic accuracy with SP in serous effusion cytopathology. However, more research using larger patient cohorts would provide more evidence regarding WP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50217,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cytology\",\"volume\":\"42 3\",\"pages\":\"142-150\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435873/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cytology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/joc.joc_16_25\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cytology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joc.joc_16_25","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与常规制备相比,液体细胞学(LBC)通常是妇科和非妇科细胞病理学的首选方法,但它确实有一些局限性。本研究旨在评估新开发的WellPrep®(WP)与SurePath™(SP)在浆液积液细胞学方面的诊断准确性和特异性细胞形态学特征。材料与方法:收集体腔积液标本178份,分别采用WP法和SP法进行分选处理。病例的LBC切片由三位病理学家独立评估其细胞形态学特征。其中66例(42.6%)经组织病理学、临床和/或放射学随访证实为非肿瘤性或恶性。统计分析两种LBC方法的诊断一致性和所选细胞形态学特征的差异。结果:WP的诊断性能与SP相当,一致性率为75.7% (kappa = 0.659; Spearman’s ρ = 0.920)。此外,WP和SP之间的诊断准确性测试没有差异。WP或SP处理的病例没有出现次优的切片质量。在细胞形态学特征方面,与SP相比,WP的细胞变性较少。SP的细胞分布更均匀,结构模式保存得更好。SP也更频繁地表现出明显的核仁、细胞质液泡和印戒细胞特征。结论:在浆液积液细胞病理学中,WP与SP具有相当的切片质量和诊断准确性。然而,更多的研究使用更大的患者队列将提供更多关于白粉病的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Performance and Cytomorphologic Features Between Newly Developed WellPrep<sup>®</sup> and SurePath™ in Serous Effusion Cytology.

A Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Performance and Cytomorphologic Features Between Newly Developed WellPrep<sup>®</sup> and SurePath™ in Serous Effusion Cytology.

A Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Performance and Cytomorphologic Features Between Newly Developed WellPrep® and SurePath™ in Serous Effusion Cytology.

Introduction: Whereas liquid-based cytology (LBC) is often the preferred method in gynecological and non-gynecological cytopathology compared to conventional preparation, it does have several limitations. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and specific cytomorphologic characteristics of the newly developed WellPrep® (WP) in comparison with SurePath™ (SP) in serous effusion cytology.

Materials and methods: A total of 178 body cavity effusion samples were collected, which were divided and further processed using both WP and SP methods. The LBC slides of the cases were independently evaluated regarding their cytomorphologic features by three pathologists. Among them, the diagnosis of 66 cases (42.6%) was confirmed as non-neoplastic or malignant using a combination of histopathological, clinical, and/or radiological follow-up. Statistical analysis was conducted to assess the diagnostic concordance and differences in selected cytomorphologic features between the two LBC methods.

Results: WP demonstrated diagnostic performance comparable to SP, with a concordance rate of 75.7% (kappa = 0.659; Spearman's ρ = 0.920). Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy measures tested were not different between WP and SP. No case processed with WP or SP showed suboptimal slide quality. For cytomorphologic features, cellular degeneration was less frequently observed in WP than in SP. SP showed more even cellular distribution and better preservation of architectural patterns. SP also more frequently exhibited prominent nucleoli, cytoplasmic vacuoles, and signet ring cell features.

Conclusion: WP offers comparable slide quality and diagnostic accuracy with SP in serous effusion cytopathology. However, more research using larger patient cohorts would provide more evidence regarding WP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cytology
Journal of Cytology MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
34
审稿时长
46 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cytology is the official Quarterly publication of the Indian Academy of Cytologists. It is in the 25th year of publication in the year 2008. The journal covers all aspects of diagnostic cytology, including fine needle aspiration cytology, gynecological and non-gynecological cytology. Articles on ancillary techniques, like cytochemistry, immunocytochemistry, electron microscopy, molecular cytopathology, as applied to cytological material are also welcome. The journal gives preference to clinically oriented studies over experimental and animal studies. The Journal would publish peer-reviewed original research papers, case reports, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and debates.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信