Suppr超能文献

液基薄层制片法与传统制片法在胰腺细针穿刺活检中的比较。

Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration biopsy.

作者信息

de Luna Regina, Eloubeidi Mohamad A, Sheffield Matthew V, Eltoum Isam, Jhala Nirag, Jhala Darshana, Chen Victor K, Chhieng David C

机构信息

Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35249, USA.

出版信息

Diagn Cytopathol. 2004 Feb;30(2):71-6. doi: 10.1002/dc.10349.

Abstract

Use of ThinPrep preparation for fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNA) is gaining popularity. However, there may be a difference in the morphology and the operating characteristics between ThinPrep and conventional methods. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of the two methods and to address the pitfalls of ThinPrep preparation in pancreatic FNA. A computer search identified 67 pancreatic FNAs with both conventional smears and ThinPrep preparation during a 19-mo period. These cases, obtained under endoscopic ultrasound-guidance, consisted of 47 malignant neoplasms (44 ductal carcinomas, two mucinous neoplasms, and one islet cell tumor) and 20 benign lesions. Direct smears were prepared first and the remaining material was then put into PreservCyt Solution for ThinPrep slides. All slides were reviewed and the cytologic diagnoses were correlated with histologic and clinical follow-up. Five conventional and 16 ThinPrep specimens were unsatisfactory due to insufficient cellularity. These cases were excluded from the analysis. Among the 62 cases evaluated by conventional preparation, 77% (34) were diagnosed as positive and 14% (seven) atypical/suspicious by conventional smears. For the 51 ThinPrep specimens, 58% (22) were interpreted as positive and 31% (12) atypical/suspicious. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosing a malignancy were 77%, 100%, and 84% for conventional smears and 58%, 100%, and 67% for ThinPrep preparation, respectively. There were no false positives with either method. However, three benign lesions were interpreted as atypical/suspicious with ThinPrep preparation because of the presence of single atypical cells with distinct nucleoli. One of the two mucinous neoplasms was incorrectly diagnosed with ThinPrep preparation because of lack of mucin. The diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic FNA using ThinPrep is inferior to that of conventional smears. This may be partly due to the use of split sample technique resulting in scant cellularity in ThinPrep preparation and partly due to the differences in morphology between the two preparations. Therefore, the current morphologic criteria may need modification for ThinPrep preparation in pancreatic FNA.

摘要

采用ThinPrep制片法进行细针穿刺活检(FNA)正日益普及。然而,ThinPrep制片法与传统方法在形态学及操作特性方面可能存在差异。本研究的目的是比较这两种方法的准确性,并探讨ThinPrep制片法在胰腺FNA中的缺陷。通过计算机检索,在19个月的时间里共识别出67例同时采用传统涂片法和ThinPrep制片法的胰腺FNA病例。这些病例均在内镜超声引导下获取,包括47例恶性肿瘤(44例导管癌、2例黏液性肿瘤和1例胰岛细胞瘤)和20例良性病变。首先制备直接涂片,然后将剩余材料放入PreservCyt溶液中制作ThinPrep玻片。对所有玻片进行复查,并将细胞学诊断结果与组织学及临床随访结果进行对照。由于细胞数量不足,5例传统涂片标本和16例ThinPrep标本不合格,这些病例被排除在分析之外。在采用传统制片法评估的62例病例中,传统涂片诊断为阳性的占77%(34例),非典型/可疑的占14%(7例)。对于51例ThinPrep标本,58%(22例)被判定为阳性,31%(12例)为非典型/可疑。传统涂片诊断恶性肿瘤的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为77%、100%和84%,ThinPrep制片法分别为5

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验