A prospective study comparing rapid assessment of smears and ThinPrep^® for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirates

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: ThinPrep^® is often used for endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) samples but the sensitivity of this method is unknown. The objective of the study was to compare sensitivity and accuracy of ThinPrep versus the smear method in pancreas and lymph node samples obtained by EUS-FNA.

Patients and methods: Patients with suspected malignancy in the pancreas or lymph node underwent EUS-FNA. On-site rapid assessment of all aspirates using the smear method was performed. After rapid assessment, three additional passes from each site were submitted into ThinPrep liquid medium. Cytopathologists interpreting the smear method and ThinPrep slides were blinded to each other. The gold standard was final cytology or pathology results.

Results: A total of 130 patients (36 % women, mean age 63 years) underwent EUS-FNA of 139 sites (50 pancreas, 89 lymph node). Malignancy was confirmed in 47 pancreas samples (94 %) and 48 lymph node samples (54 %). Mean ± SD number of passes made for the smear method was 2.6 ± 1.3. For pancreatic cancer, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of the ThinPrep versus the smear method were: 62 % versus 98 %, 100 % versus 100 %, 100 % versus 100 %, 14 % versus 75 %, and 64 % versus 98 %, respectively. For lymph nodes the values were 67 % versus 92 %, 100 % versus 98 %, 100 % versus 98 %, 72 % versus 72 %, and 82 % versus 94 %, respectively.

Conclusions: The smear method is more sensitive and accurate than ThinPrep in detecting malignancy from EUS-FNA samples of the pancreas and lymph nodes. Smear method with on-site rapid assessment should be favored over ThinPrep in suspected malignancy.

References

• 1 Guidos B J, Selvaggi S M. Use of the Thin Prep Pap Test in clinical practice.  Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;  20 70-73
  MissingFormLabel

  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 2 Biscotti C V, O'Brien D L, Gero M A. et al . Thin-layer Pap test vs. conventional Pap smear. Analysis of 400 split samples.  J Reprod Med. 2002;  47 9-13
  MissingFormLabel

  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 3 Bishop J W, Bigner S H, Colgan T J. et al . Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results.  Acta Cytol. 1998;  42 189-197
  MissingFormLabel

  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 4 Bishop J W, Cheuvront D A, Sims K L. Evaluation of the AutoCyte SCREEN system in a clinical cytopathology laboratory.  Acta Cytol. 2000;  44 128-136
  MissingFormLabel

  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 5 Crum C P, Genest D R, Krane J F. et al . Subclassifying atypical squamous cells in Thin-Prep cervical cytology correlates with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA.  Am J Clin Pathol. 1999;  112 384-390
  MissingFormLabel

  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 6 Hessling J J, Raso D S, Schiffer B. et al . Effectiveness of thin-layer preparations vs. conventional Pap smears in a blinded, split-sample study. Extended cytologic evaluation.  J Reprod Med. 2001;  46 880-886
  MissingFormLabel

  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 7 Minge L, Fleming M, VanGeem T, Bishop J W. AutoCyte Prep system vs. conventional cervical cytology. Comparison based on 2,156 cases.  J Reprod Med. 2000;  45 179-184
  MissingFormLabel

  PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 8 Meara R S, Jhala D, Eloubeidi M A. et al . Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA biopsy of bile duct and gallbladder: analysis of 53 cases.  Cytopathology. 2006;  17 42-49
  MissingFormLabel

  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 9 Eloubeidi M A, Tamhane A, Jhala N. et al . Agreement between rapid onsite and final cytologic interpretations of EUS-guided FNA specimens: implications for the endosonographer and patient management.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 2841-2847
  MissingFormLabel

  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 10 Savides T J, Donohue M, Hunt G. et al . EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  66 277-282
  MissingFormLabel

  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 11 Williams D B, Sahai A V, Aabakken L. et al . Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: a large single centre experience.  Gut. 1999;  44 720-726
  MissingFormLabel

  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 12 de Luna R, Eloubeidi M A, Sheffield M V. et al . Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations in pancreatic fine-needle aspiration biopsy.  Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;  30 71-76
  MissingFormLabel

  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 13 Siddiqui M T, Gokaslan S T, Saboorian M H, Ashfaq R. Split sample comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided pancreatic fine-needle aspirations.  Diagn Cytopathol. 2005;  32 70-75
  MissingFormLabel

  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 14 Klapman J B, Logrono R, Dye C E, Waxman I. Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;  98 1289-1294
  MissingFormLabel

  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
• 15 LeBlanc J K, Ciaccia D, Al-Assi M T. et al . Optimal number of EUS-guided fine needle passes needed to obtain a correct diagnosis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 475-481
  MissingFormLabel

  CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

J. K. LeBlancMD 

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Indiana University Medical Center

550 N. University Blvd UH 4100
Indianapolis, IN 46202
USA

Fax: +1-317-278-7057

Email: juleblan@iupui.edu