Moriarty Ann T, Schwartz Mary R, Ducatman Barbara S, Booth Christine N, Haja Jennifer, Chakraborty Subhendu, Williamson Beth
AmeriPath Indiana, Indianapolis, IN 46219-1739, USA.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008 Nov;132(11):1716-8. doi: 10.5858/132.11.1716.
Newer liquid-based preparations differ morphologically from classic preparations (smears, filters, and cytocentrifuged preparations). Is adenocarcinoma more readily detected in liquid-based preparations? We reviewed responses from 16,750 fluid challenges of adenocarcinoma distributed in 2005 in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology (CAP NGC).
To compare the performance of body cavity fluid liquid-based preparations with adenocarcinoma to that in classic preparations in the CAP NGC.
Responses for ThinPrep challenges were compared with classic preparations for exact match diagnoses of adenocarcinoma from pelvic washes, pleural fluid, pericardial fluid, and peritoneal fluids in the 2005 CAP NGC.
A total of 13,690 pathologists, 8345 cytotechnologists, and 5958 laboratories submitted responses to fluid challenges in 2005. Adenocarcinoma comprised 16,750 of the fluid challenges; 88% were classic preparations, and 12% were ThinPrep challenges. The exact match to the reference diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was seen in 77% of conventional preparations and 81% of ThinPrep challenges when a general category of "positive for malignancy" was assigned. When "suspicious for malignancy," an exact match diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was made in 5% and 4% of classic and ThinPrep challenges, respectively.
ThinPrep challenges performed slightly better overall, but only pelvic washings and peritoneal fluids demonstrated statistically significant improved performance with ThinPrep challenges. Use of liquid-based preparation is widespread for nongynecologic preparations and performs as well, and sometimes better than, classic preparations in an interlaboratory comparison program.
新型液基制剂在形态学上与传统制剂（涂片、滤膜和细胞离心制剂）不同。在液基制剂中腺癌更容易被检测到吗？我们回顾了2005年美国病理学家学会非妇科细胞学实验室间比较项目（CAP NGC）中16750例腺癌液体挑战的回复。
比较CAP NGC中体腔积液液基制剂与传统制剂检测腺癌的性能。
将2005年CAP NGC中盆腔冲洗液、胸腔积液、心包积液和腹腔积液中腺癌的ThinPrep挑战回复与传统制剂进行比较，以进行腺癌的精确匹配诊断。
2005年共有13690名病理学家、8345名细胞技术人员和5958个实验室提交了液体挑战的回复。腺癌占液体挑战的16750例；88%为传统制剂，12%为ThinPrep挑战。当指定“恶性阳性”的一般类别时，77%的传统制剂和81%的ThinPrep挑战与腺癌的参考诊断精确匹配。当“可疑恶性”时，传统制剂和ThinPrep挑战中分别有5%和4%做出了腺癌的精确匹配诊断。
总体而言，ThinPrep挑战的表现略好，但只有盆腔冲洗液和腹腔积液在ThinPrep挑战中表现出统计学上显著的改善。在非妇科制剂中，液基制剂的使用很普遍，并且在实验室间比较项目中表现与传统制剂相当，有时甚至更好。
