Split sample comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided pancreatic fine-needle aspirations.

TitleSplit sample comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided pancreatic fine-needle aspirations.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2005
AuthorsSiddiqui MT, Gokaslan ST, M Saboorian H, Ashfaq R
JournalDiagn Cytopathol
Volume32
Issue2
Pagination70-5
Date Published2005 Feb
ISSN8755-1039
KeywordsAdenocarcinoma, Biopsy, Fine-Needle, Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Histocytological Preparation Techniques, Humans, Male, Pancreas, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Sensitivity and Specificity
Abstract

Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of pancreatic lesions is a common procedure to establish a tissue diagnosis before chemotherapy or surgery. In this study, the authors attempt to compare the diagnostic value of the ThinPrep (TP) method with conventional smears (CSs) in samples obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided pancreatic FNAs. Material obtained, prospectively, from ERCP-guided pancreatic FNAs was split to prepare CSs (2-5 slides) first, the remainder being rinsed in PreservCyte, and in the laboratory, 1 TP slide was prepared. The diagnostic categories of unsatisfactory, benign, reactive, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant were compared. Fifty-one pancreatic FNAs prepared by split sample method yielded the following results: TP yielded unsatisfactory, 6 cases; benign, 3 cases; reactive, 5 cases; suspicious for malignancy, 11 cases; and malignant, 26 cases; in contrast, CS yielded unsatisfactory, 13 cases; benign, 4 cases; reactive, 3 cases; suspicious for malignancy, 13 cases; and malignant, 18 cases. Histological follow-up was available in 21 cases (reactive, 8 cases; suspicious for malignancy, 1 case, and malignant, 12 cases). The foregoing data indicate a higher sensitivity in detection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma by the TP method (TP, 91% vs. 58% CS) with equivalent specificity (100%). In addition, TP provides better preservation and cytological detail.

DOI10.1002/dc.20174
Alternate JournalDiagn Cytopathol
PubMed ID15637676
Related Faculty: 
Momin Siddiqui, M.D.

Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 1300 York Avenue New York, NY 10065 Phone: (212) 746-6464
Surgical Pathology: (212) 746-2700