Cytospin preparation from residual material in needle hub: Does it add to fine needle aspiration diagnosis?
Keywords:
Residual material, Cytocentrifugation, Utility, Cytospin preparation
Abstract
Background: Fine needle aspiration is currently the most favored technique for pre-operative diagnosis of most palpable and certain non-palpable masses. The present study aimed at exploring the utility of cytospin preparation from residual material in the needle hub for assisting in routine cytologic diagnosis.Methods: For this prospective study, 100 cases of fine needle aspiration from lymph node, breast, soft tissue, thyroid and salivary glands were included. After preparation of routine smears, material in needle hub was rinsed in saline and cytospin preparation was made. Routine and cytospin preparations were assessed for cytologic diagnosis and results compared.Results: Of the 100 cases included, the cytospin preparation showed good staining in all (100%). Cellularity was adequate in 90% of the cases with satisfactory cellular preservation in 72% cases. In 16 cases (16%), the diagnostic material was present in cytospin preparation while routine smears were inadequate for opinion. Conclusion: Cyto-centrifugation of the residual material in needle hub after fine needle aspiration improves the diagnostic yield of routine smears. Hence, this technique can be utilized to reduce the number of re-aspirations, especially at centers where the requisite equipment is already available.References
1. Liu K, Dodge R, Glasgow BJ, Layfield LJ. Fine-needle aspiration: comparison of smear, cytospin, and cell block preparations in diagnostic and cost effectiveness. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;1:70-74.
2. Henry- Stanley MJ, Stanley MW. Processing of needle rinse material from fine needle aspiration rarely detects malignancy not identified in smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1992;8:538-540.
3. Salhadar A, Massarini- Wafai R, Wojcik EM. Routine use of ThinPrep method in fine needle aspiration material as an adjunct to standard smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25;101-103.
4. Zito FA, Gadaleta CD, Salvatore C. A modified cell block technique for fine needle aspiration cytology. Acta Cytol 1995;39: 93-99.
5. Gurley AM, Silverman JF, Lassaletta MM, Wiley JE, Holbrook CT, Joshi VV. The utility of ancillary studies in paediatric FNA cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1992; 8:137-146.
6. Kung IT, Chan SK, Lo ES. Application of the immunoperoxidase technique to cell block preparations from fine needle aspirates. Acta Cytol 1990; 34:297-303.
7. Nathan NA, Narayan E, Smith MM, Horn MJ. Cell block cytology: improved preparation and its efficacy in diagnostic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:599-606.
8. Keyhani – Rofaga S, O’Toole RV, Leming MF. Role of the cell block in fine-needle aspirations. Acta Cytol 1984;28:630-631.
9. Wojcik EM, Selvaggi SM. Comparison of smears and cell blocks in the Fine needle aspiration diagnosis of recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Acta Cytol 1991;35:773-776.
10. Axe SR, Erozan VS, Ermatinger SV. Fine needle aspiration of the liver: a comparison of smear and rinse preparation in the detection of cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1986;86:281-285.
11. Smith MJ, Kini SR, Watson E. Fine needle aspiration and endoscopic brush cytology: comparison of direct smears and rinsing. Acta Cytol 1980; 24:456-459.
2. Henry- Stanley MJ, Stanley MW. Processing of needle rinse material from fine needle aspiration rarely detects malignancy not identified in smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1992;8:538-540.
3. Salhadar A, Massarini- Wafai R, Wojcik EM. Routine use of ThinPrep method in fine needle aspiration material as an adjunct to standard smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25;101-103.
4. Zito FA, Gadaleta CD, Salvatore C. A modified cell block technique for fine needle aspiration cytology. Acta Cytol 1995;39: 93-99.
5. Gurley AM, Silverman JF, Lassaletta MM, Wiley JE, Holbrook CT, Joshi VV. The utility of ancillary studies in paediatric FNA cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1992; 8:137-146.
6. Kung IT, Chan SK, Lo ES. Application of the immunoperoxidase technique to cell block preparations from fine needle aspirates. Acta Cytol 1990; 34:297-303.
7. Nathan NA, Narayan E, Smith MM, Horn MJ. Cell block cytology: improved preparation and its efficacy in diagnostic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:599-606.
8. Keyhani – Rofaga S, O’Toole RV, Leming MF. Role of the cell block in fine-needle aspirations. Acta Cytol 1984;28:630-631.
9. Wojcik EM, Selvaggi SM. Comparison of smears and cell blocks in the Fine needle aspiration diagnosis of recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Acta Cytol 1991;35:773-776.
10. Axe SR, Erozan VS, Ermatinger SV. Fine needle aspiration of the liver: a comparison of smear and rinse preparation in the detection of cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1986;86:281-285.
11. Smith MJ, Kini SR, Watson E. Fine needle aspiration and endoscopic brush cytology: comparison of direct smears and rinsing. Acta Cytol 1980; 24:456-459.
Published
2015-01-28
Issue
Section
Original Article
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).
