Cytological Analysis of Body Fluids and Comparison of Precision in Diagnosis Between Conventional Smear and Cell Block Along with Clinical Correlation
Keywords:
Conventional smear, Cell Block, Malignant effusions, Cytology
Abstract
Background:The cytological analysis of serous effusions helps in diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic implications, especially in malignant effusions.This study determines the comparison of precision in cytological analysis between conventional smear and cell block in body fluids with clinical correlation. The study was conducted in M S Ramaiah medical college over a period of 2 years (2016-2018) in the department of pathology on total of 100 fluid cytology samples. Methods and Material:Conventional smears and cell block for the same fluid was performed and cytological analysis done. The cytological data was analyzed for significance in correlation between smear and cell block.The results were tabulated and analyzed using SPSS version 15.0 Results:Cell block was diagnostically superior in 53.11% of cases as compared to conventional smear which was 18.22%. However conventional smear was diagnostically inadequate in 33.98% of cases. Conclusions:Cell block preparations can be combined with conventional smears wherever possible to improve diagnostic accuracy.References
1) Koss LG, Melamed MR, (Ed). Koss Diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic
bases,5th edition, JB Lippincott Company: Philadelphia.2006; 922-1016.
2) Grunze H. The comparative diagnostic accuracy, efficiency and specificity of cytological techniques used in the diagnosis of malignant neoplasms in serous effusions of pleural and pericardial cavities.Acta Cytol1964; 8(2):150–63.
3) Fetsch PA, Simsir A, Brosky K, Abati A. Comparison of three commonly usecytologic preparations in effusions. Diagn Cytopathol.2002; 26(1):61-66.
4) Bhanvadia Viral M, Santwani P M, 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;24(2):125-31.
5) Thapar M, Mishra RK, Sharma A, Goyal V. Critical analysis of cell block versus smear examination in effusions. J Cytol 2009; 26:60-4.
5) Nathan NA, Narayan E, Smith MM, Horn MJ. Cytology-improved preparation and its efficacy in diagnostic cytology. Am J ClinPathol.2000; 114(4):599–606.
6) Mair, Dunbar F, Becker PJ, Du Plessis W. Fine Needle cytology: Is aspiration suctionnecessary. A study of 100 masses in various sites. Acta Cytol.1989; 33(6): 42-44.
7) Padmavati A, Sai Prasad BV, Anuradha B. A comparative study of fluid cytology with smear and cell block preparation. Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare.2016;(3)65: 3532-3535.
8) Khan N, Sherwani RK, Afroz N, Kapoor S. The cytodiagnosis of malignant effusions and determination of the primary site. J cytol, 2005; 22(3): 107-110.
9) Dey S, Nag D, Nandi A, Bandyopadhyay R. Utility of cell block to detect malignancy in fluid cytology: Adjunct or necessity? . Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics,2017;13(3):425-28.
10) Sujathan K, Kannan S, Mathew A, Pillai KR, Chandralekha B, Nair MK. Cytodiagnosis of serous effusions: A combined approach of morphological features in Papanicolaou and MGG stained smears and a modified cell block technique. Journal of Cytology.2000; 17(2):89-95.
11) Green LK., Griffin J. Increased Natural killer cells in fluids. Actacytol1996; 40(6): 1240-1245.
12) Humera QF, Ansari S, Maimoona M. Efficacy of Polymerase chain reaction overZiehl-Neelsen staining in the diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Int J Pharm BioSci,2012; 2(4):B 272-278.
13) Udasimath S, Arakeri SU, Karigowdar MH. Diagnostic utility of the cell block methodversus the conventional smear study in pleural fluid cytology. J Cytol.2012; 29(1):1115.
14) Matreja SS, Malukani K, Nandedkar SS, Varma AV, Saxena A, Ajmera A. Comparison of efficacy of cell block versus conventional smear study in exudative fluids. Nigerian Postgraduate journal.2018;24(4):245-49.
15) 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.
bases,5th edition, JB Lippincott Company: Philadelphia.2006; 922-1016.
2) Grunze H. The comparative diagnostic accuracy, efficiency and specificity of cytological techniques used in the diagnosis of malignant neoplasms in serous effusions of pleural and pericardial cavities.Acta Cytol1964; 8(2):150–63.
3) Fetsch PA, Simsir A, Brosky K, Abati A. Comparison of three commonly usecytologic preparations in effusions. Diagn Cytopathol.2002; 26(1):61-66.
4) Bhanvadia Viral M, Santwani P M, 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;24(2):125-31.
5) Thapar M, Mishra RK, Sharma A, Goyal V. Critical analysis of cell block versus smear examination in effusions. J Cytol 2009; 26:60-4.
5) Nathan NA, Narayan E, Smith MM, Horn MJ. Cytology-improved preparation and its efficacy in diagnostic cytology. Am J ClinPathol.2000; 114(4):599–606.
6) Mair, Dunbar F, Becker PJ, Du Plessis W. Fine Needle cytology: Is aspiration suctionnecessary. A study of 100 masses in various sites. Acta Cytol.1989; 33(6): 42-44.
7) Padmavati A, Sai Prasad BV, Anuradha B. A comparative study of fluid cytology with smear and cell block preparation. Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare.2016;(3)65: 3532-3535.
8) Khan N, Sherwani RK, Afroz N, Kapoor S. The cytodiagnosis of malignant effusions and determination of the primary site. J cytol, 2005; 22(3): 107-110.
9) Dey S, Nag D, Nandi A, Bandyopadhyay R. Utility of cell block to detect malignancy in fluid cytology: Adjunct or necessity? . Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics,2017;13(3):425-28.
10) Sujathan K, Kannan S, Mathew A, Pillai KR, Chandralekha B, Nair MK. Cytodiagnosis of serous effusions: A combined approach of morphological features in Papanicolaou and MGG stained smears and a modified cell block technique. Journal of Cytology.2000; 17(2):89-95.
11) Green LK., Griffin J. Increased Natural killer cells in fluids. Actacytol1996; 40(6): 1240-1245.
12) Humera QF, Ansari S, Maimoona M. Efficacy of Polymerase chain reaction overZiehl-Neelsen staining in the diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Int J Pharm BioSci,2012; 2(4):B 272-278.
13) Udasimath S, Arakeri SU, Karigowdar MH. Diagnostic utility of the cell block methodversus the conventional smear study in pleural fluid cytology. J Cytol.2012; 29(1):1115.
14) Matreja SS, Malukani K, Nandedkar SS, Varma AV, Saxena A, Ajmera A. Comparison of efficacy of cell block versus conventional smear study in exudative fluids. Nigerian Postgraduate journal.2018;24(4):245-49.
15) 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.
Published
2019-02-26
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).
