2007•Acta CytologicaRequires access

Analysis of Urine Cytology Tests in 120 Paired Cases

Khar-Kee Sng, Min En Nga, Soo‐Yong Tan, Todd Walker

Open publisher page 13 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the smear quality and diagnostic accuracy of ThinPrep processing in comparison to conventional Cytospin technique for urinary cytology. STUDY DESIGN: ThinPrep and Cytospin techniques were retrospectively evaluated by 2 observers in a double-blinded, randomized fashion. Each quality parameter was scored using a semi-quantitative score of 1-3. Diagnostic accuracy indices were calculated with biopsy histology as the gold standard. RESULTS: Quality of cellular distribution and cell preservation were better with Cytospin preparations, whereas ThinPrep smears were superior in terms of stain distribution and cleaner slide background. However, the only significant differences observed were in cellular distribution and a clean background (p < 0.05). Sensitivity and positive and negative predictive values were higher with Cytospin than the ThinPrep technique (90.0%, 94.7% and 71.4% vs. 80.0%, 94.1% and 55.6%, respectively). Conversely, the specificity of both techniques was comparable. CONCLUSION: The Cytospin smears were of better quality than those prepared by the ThinPrep technique. Although both techniques resulted in similar diagnostic accuracies in negative cases, the ThinPrep preparations were not found to be superior to Cytospin smears in diagnosing positive urinary cytology.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the smear quality and diagnostic accuracy of ThinPrep processing in comparison to conventional Cytospin technique for urinary cytology. STUDY DESIGN: ThinPrep and Cytospin techniques were retrospectively evaluated by 2 observers in a double-blinded, randomized fashion. Each quality parameter was scored using a semi-quantitative score of 1-3. Diagnostic accuracy indices were calculated with biopsy histology as the gold standard. RESULTS: Quality of cellular distribution and cell preservation were better with Cytospin preparations, whereas ThinPrep smears were superior in terms of stain distribution and cleaner slide background. However, the only significant differences observed were in cellular distribution and a clean background (p < 0.05). Sensitivity and positive and negative predictive values were higher with Cytospin than the ThinPrep technique (90.0%, 94.7% and 71.4% vs. 80.0%, 94.1% and 55.6%, respectively). Conversely, the specificity of both techniques was comparable. CONCLUSION: The Cytospin smears were of better quality than those prepared by the ThinPrep technique. Although both techniques resulted in similar diagnostic accuracies in negative cases, the ThinPrep preparations were not found to be superior to Cytospin smears in diagnosing positive urinary cytology.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the smear quality and diagnostic accuracy of ThinPrep processing in comparison to conventional Cytospin technique for urinary cytology. STUDY DESIGN: ThinPrep and Cytospin techniques were retrospectively evaluated by 2 observers in a double-blinded, randomized fashion. Each quality parameter was scored using a semi-quantitative score of 1-3. Diagnostic accuracy indices were calculated with biopsy histology as the gold standard. RESULTS: Quality of cellular distribution and cell preservation were better with Cytospin preparations, whereas ThinPrep smears were superior in terms of stain distribution and cleaner slide background. However, the only significant differences observed were in cellular distribution and a clean background (p < 0.05). Sensitivity and positive and negative predictive values were higher with Cytospin than the ThinPrep technique (90.0%, 94.7% and 71.4% vs. 80.0%, 94.1% and 55.6%, respectively). Conversely, the specificity of both techniques was comparable. CONCLUSION: The Cytospin smears were of better quality than those prepared by the ThinPrep technique. Although both techniques resulted in similar diagnostic accuracies in negative cases, the ThinPrep preparations were not found to be superior to Cytospin smears in diagnosing positive urinary cytology.

Key concepts: Medicine, Gold standard (test), Cytology, Positive predicative value, Biopsy, Histology, Urinary system, Pathology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Analysis of Urine Cytology Tests in 120 Paired Cases — Research Paper | ScholarLens