Comparison of centrifuged liquid based cytology method with conventional brush cytology in oral lesions

Abstract

Background: Exfoliative cytology is the study of cells that are shed or scrapped off from mucosal surfaces. Centrifuged Liquid based cytology is a modified technique employed in the present study. Aims: To compare the utility of centrifuged liquid based cytology with conventional cytology in oral lesions after staining with Papanicolaou (PAP) stain. Materials and Methods: 50 cases of oral lesions comprising of normal mucosa (n=14), hyperkeratotic lesions (n=17), ulcerated lesions (n=7) and atrophic lesions (n=12) were selected. Two smears were obtained from the lesion using a cytological brush. One was spread on the slide using conventional technique, fixed immediately in 95% ethyl alcohol. Second sample was suspended in suspending solution for 10 minutes then spun in centrifuge for 10 minutes. The supernatant was poured off and the obtained cell pellet was used to prepare a smear by sedimentation and left to dry overnight. Both the smears were stained by PAP. The stained smears were compared for seven morphological parameters such as adequacy of smear, clear background, cell distribution, smear thickness, cell morphology, and presence of blood, inflammatory cells, microbial colonies and artifacts. Wilcoxon Signed rank test was used and P≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was a statistically significant difference (P<0.001) between centrifuged liquid based cytology and conventional cytology when clear background was evaluated while in all other parameters the difference was not significant. Conclusion: Centrifuged Liquid based cytology showed clearer background than conventional brush cytology in oral lesions.

Keywords

Brush cytology - liquid based cytology - oral lesions - PAP

Publication History

Article published online:
01 November 2021

• References

• 1 Ahmed HG, Idris AM, Ibrahim SO. Study of oral epithelial atypia among Sudanese tobacco users by exfoliative cytology. Anticancer Res 2003;23:1943-9.
• 2 Jullien JA, Downer MC, Speight PM, Zakrzewska JM. Evaluation of health care workers′ accuracy in recognizing oral cancer and pre-cancer. Int Dent J 1996;46:334-9.
• 3 Mehrotra R, Gupta A, Singh M, Ibrahim R. Application of cytology and molecular biology in diagnosing premalignant or malignant oral lesions. Mol Cancer 2006;5:11.
• 4 Sugerman PB, Savage NW. Exfoliative cytology in clinical oral pathology. Aust Dent J 1996;41:71-4.
• 5 Bishop JW, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ, Husain M, Howell LP, Mclntosh KM, et al. Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte Prep thin layers with matched conventional smears-including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol 1998;42:189-97.
• 6 Howell LP, Davis RL, Belk TI, Agdigos R, Lowe J. The AutoCyte preparation system for gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol 1998;42:171-7.
• 7 Linder J, Zahniser D. The ThinPrep Pap testL A review of clinical studies. Acta Cytol 1997;41:30-8.
• 8 Sprenger E, Schwazmann P, Kirkpatrick M, Fox W, Heinzerling RH, Geyer JW, et al. The false negative rate in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1996;40:81-9.
• 9 Navone R, Burlo P, Pich A, Pentenero M, Broccoletti R, Marsico A, et al. The impact of liquid-based oral cytology on the diagnosis of oral squamous dysplasia and carcinoma. Cytopathology 2007;18:356-60.
• 10 Occhino JA, Smith KL, Dryfhout V. Finding of vaginitis on liquid-based Papanicolaou test compared to wet mount andDNA probe. Obstetrical and Gynecol Survey 2009;64:99-100.
• 11 Piaton E, Hutin K, Faÿnel J, Ranchin MC, Cottier M. Cost efficiency analysis of modern cytocentrifugation methods versus liquid based (Cytyc Thinprep) processing of urinary samples. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:1208-12.
• 12 Alves VA, Bibbo M, Schmitt FC, Milanezi F, Longatto Filho A.Comparison of manual and automated methods of liquid based cytology: A morphological study. Acta Cytol 2004;48:187-93.
• 13 Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E, Brewer N. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: An updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1-78.
• 14 Sass MA. Use of a liquid-based, thin-layer Pap test in a community hospital. Impact on cytology performance and productivity. Acta Cytol 2004;48:17-22.
• 15 Grace A, McBrearty P, Troost S, Thornhill M, Kay E, Leader M. Comparative study: Conventional cervical and ThinPrep Pap tests in a routine clinical setting. Cytopathology 2002;13:200-5.
• 16 Sprenger E, Schwarmann P, Kirkpatrick M, Fox W, Heinzerling RH, Geyer JW, et al. The false negative rate in cervical cytology. Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol 1996;40:81-9.
• 17 Vassilakos P, Cossali D, Albe X, Alonso L, Hohener R, Puget E. Efficacy of monolayer preparations for cervical cytology-emphasis on suboptimal specimens. Acta Cytol 1996;40:496-500.
• 18 Kahn MA. Oral exfoliative cytology procedures: Conventional, brush biopsy and ThinPrep. J Tenn Dent Assoc 2001;81:17.
• 19 Hayama FH, Motta AC, Silva Ade P, Migliari DA. Liquid-based preparations versus conventional cytology: Specimen adequacy and diagnostic agreement in oral lesions. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2005;10:115-22.
• 20 Delavarian Z, Mohtasham N, Mosannen-Mozafari P, Pakfetrat A, Shakeri MT, Ghafoorian-Maddah R. Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a Modified Liquid-Based Cytology using OralCDx Brush in early detection of oral potentially malignant lesions and oral cancer. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:e671-6.
• 21 Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: A systematic review. Lancet 2006;367:122-32.
• 22 Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, Massuger LF, Vedder JE, Beijers-Broos A, et al. Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302:1757-64.