The Diagnostic Utility of Cell Block Preparation with Conventional Cytological Smears
A Cross Sectional Study
Keywords:
Cell block, Cytodiagnosis, Effusion
Abstract
Background: Cytological examination of serous fluids aspirated is a simple and relatively non-invasive technique to diagnose whether the effusion is malignant or benign. Cell block preparation along with conventional smear increases the sensitivity of detecting malignancies, and also has the ability to reduce false-positive interpretations. Methods: A total 68 samples of body fluid (pleural and ascitic) specimens were examined for conventional cytological smear (CS) and cell block method (CB) over a period of one year. Out of 68 fluids, 40 were pleural fluid and 28 were ascitic fluid. Each fluid specimen was examined by conventional smear technique as well as cell block technique. The morphological details, cellularity, architecture, nuclear and cytoplasmic details were studied in both CS and CB techniques. Result: A total 82.35% smears had adequate material; while of the total cell blocks, 75% cell blocks had adequate material. A total of 11.76% cases were malignant on smears,5.88% were suspicious of malignancy, 64.7% were benign/non-neoplastic lesions. A total 13.2% cases were malignant on cell block, 1.47% were suspicious of malignancy, 60.29% were benign/non-neoplastic lesions. Sensitivity, positive and negative predictive value and accuracy of cell block technique were greater than that of FNAC smears Conclusion: For the final cytodiagnosis of body fluid, there is statistically significant difference between the two techniques. Cell blocks prepared from the residual fluid specimen can be useful for more definitive diagnosis, with advantage of IHC and special stains where required.References
1. Koss LG, Melamed MR. Diagnostic Cytology in Koss’ Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic bases. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: Lippincott Company, Vol.I : 2006:3-18.
2. Thapar M, Mishra RK, Sharma A, Goyal V. A critical analysis of the cell block versus
smear examination in effusions. J Cytol. 2009;26:60.
3. Nathan A Nithyananda, Narayan Eddie, Smith M Mary, Horn J Murray. Cell Block Cytology Improved Preparation and Its Efficiency in Diagnostic Cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:599-606.
4. Bales CE. Cytological techniques, part1. In: Koss LG, ed.Diagnostic Cytology and Its Histopathologic Bases, 5th ed. Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, USA: Lippincott Company, Vol.II 2006:1590-1592.
5. Bhanvadia VM, Santwani PM, Vachhani JH. Analysis of Diagnostic Value of Cytological Smear Method Versus Cell Block Method in Body Fluid Cytology: Study Of 150 Cases Ethiop J Health Sci. 2014 Apr; 24(2): 125-131
6. Udasimath S, Arakeri SU, Karigowdar MH and Yelikar BR. Diagnostic
utility of the cell block method versus the conventional smear Study in pleural fluid
cytology. J Cytol. 2012 Jan-Mar; 29(1): 11–15.
7. Dekker A, Bupp PA. Cytology of serous effusions. An investigation into the usefulness of cellblocks versus smears. Am J ClinPathol 1978;70(6):855-860
8. Krogerus LA, Andersson LC. A simple method for the preparation of paraffin-
embedded cell blocks from fine needle aspirates, effusions and brushings. ActaCytol.
1988;32:586- 587.
9. Leung SW, Bedard YC. Methods in pathology: simple miniblock technique for cytology. Mod Pathol. 1993;6:630-632.
10. Frederick M, Bridget C, Ann D. A review of 50 consecutive cytology cell block preparations in a large general hospital. J ClinPathol 1997;50:985-990.
11. Spieler P, Gloor F. Identification of types and primary sites of malignant tumors by examination of exfoliated tumor cells in serous fluids. Comparison with diagnostic accuracy on small histologic biopsies. ActaCytol 1985;5:753-767.
12. Brown T Karen, Fulbright K Robert, Avitabile M Ann, Bashist Benjamin. Cytologic Analysis in fine needle aspiration biopsy: Smears vs Cell Blocks. AJR 1993;161:629-631.
13. Sujathan K, Pillai KR, Chandralekha B, Kannan S, Mathew A, Nair MK. Cytodiagnosis of serous effusions : A combined approach to morphological features in Papanicolaou and May –GrunwaldGiemsa stained smears and Modified cell block technique. Journal of Cytology 2000;17(2):89-95.
14. Kung IT, Yeun RW, Chan JK. Technical notes. Optimal formalin fixation and
Processing schedule of cell blocks from the fine needle aspiration. Pathology
1989;21:143-145.
15. Bodele AK, Parate SN, Wadadekar AA, Bobhate SK, Munshi MM. Diagnostic utility of cell block preparation in reporting of fluid cytology. J. Cytol 2003; 20(3):133-135.
16. Takagi F. Studies on tumor cells in serous effusions. Am J ClinPathol, 1954 Jun
24(6):663- 75.
17. Richardson HL, Koss LG, Simon TR. Evaluation of concomitant use of cytological and histological technique in recognition of cancer in exfoliated material from various sources. Cancer. 1955;8:948–950.
18. Liu K, Dodge K, Glassgow BJ, et al. Comparison of smears, cytospin & cell block preparation in diagnostic & cost effectiveness. Diagn cytopathol. 1998;19(1):70–74.
2. Thapar M, Mishra RK, Sharma A, Goyal V. A critical analysis of the cell block versus
smear examination in effusions. J Cytol. 2009;26:60.
3. Nathan A Nithyananda, Narayan Eddie, Smith M Mary, Horn J Murray. Cell Block Cytology Improved Preparation and Its Efficiency in Diagnostic Cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:599-606.
4. Bales CE. Cytological techniques, part1. In: Koss LG, ed.Diagnostic Cytology and Its Histopathologic Bases, 5th ed. Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, USA: Lippincott Company, Vol.II 2006:1590-1592.
5. Bhanvadia VM, Santwani PM, Vachhani JH. Analysis of Diagnostic Value of Cytological Smear Method Versus Cell Block Method in Body Fluid Cytology: Study Of 150 Cases Ethiop J Health Sci. 2014 Apr; 24(2): 125-131
6. Udasimath S, Arakeri SU, Karigowdar MH and Yelikar BR. Diagnostic
utility of the cell block method versus the conventional smear Study in pleural fluid
cytology. J Cytol. 2012 Jan-Mar; 29(1): 11–15.
7. Dekker A, Bupp PA. Cytology of serous effusions. An investigation into the usefulness of cellblocks versus smears. Am J ClinPathol 1978;70(6):855-860
8. Krogerus LA, Andersson LC. A simple method for the preparation of paraffin-
embedded cell blocks from fine needle aspirates, effusions and brushings. ActaCytol.
1988;32:586- 587.
9. Leung SW, Bedard YC. Methods in pathology: simple miniblock technique for cytology. Mod Pathol. 1993;6:630-632.
10. Frederick M, Bridget C, Ann D. A review of 50 consecutive cytology cell block preparations in a large general hospital. J ClinPathol 1997;50:985-990.
11. Spieler P, Gloor F. Identification of types and primary sites of malignant tumors by examination of exfoliated tumor cells in serous fluids. Comparison with diagnostic accuracy on small histologic biopsies. ActaCytol 1985;5:753-767.
12. Brown T Karen, Fulbright K Robert, Avitabile M Ann, Bashist Benjamin. Cytologic Analysis in fine needle aspiration biopsy: Smears vs Cell Blocks. AJR 1993;161:629-631.
13. Sujathan K, Pillai KR, Chandralekha B, Kannan S, Mathew A, Nair MK. Cytodiagnosis of serous effusions : A combined approach to morphological features in Papanicolaou and May –GrunwaldGiemsa stained smears and Modified cell block technique. Journal of Cytology 2000;17(2):89-95.
14. Kung IT, Yeun RW, Chan JK. Technical notes. Optimal formalin fixation and
Processing schedule of cell blocks from the fine needle aspiration. Pathology
1989;21:143-145.
15. Bodele AK, Parate SN, Wadadekar AA, Bobhate SK, Munshi MM. Diagnostic utility of cell block preparation in reporting of fluid cytology. J. Cytol 2003; 20(3):133-135.
16. Takagi F. Studies on tumor cells in serous effusions. Am J ClinPathol, 1954 Jun
24(6):663- 75.
17. Richardson HL, Koss LG, Simon TR. Evaluation of concomitant use of cytological and histological technique in recognition of cancer in exfoliated material from various sources. Cancer. 1955;8:948–950.
18. Liu K, Dodge K, Glassgow BJ, et al. Comparison of smears, cytospin & cell block preparation in diagnostic & cost effectiveness. Diagn cytopathol. 1998;19(1):70–74.
Published
2019-01-28
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).
