Title: Diagnostic Utility of Cell Block Method versus Cytospin Method in Pleural and Peritoneal Fluid Cytology
Authors: Mulkalwar M, Chandrakar J, Kujur P, Gahine R, Swarnakar S, Bhaskar L.V.K.S
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v4i11.37
Background: Cytological evaluation of body cavity fluid is diagnostically challenging. Improved ethanol formalin fixative is used which offer excellent cytomorphological features. Cell blocks prepared from residual tissue fluids or effusion obtained by aspiration, can be useful adjunct to smear for establishing a more definitive cytopathologic diagnosis. . Methods: A total of 170 fluid specimens were examined for cytospin smear and cell block method. Out of 170 fluids, 102 were peritoneal and 68 were pleural. Each fluid specimen was subjected to cytospin smear (CSS) technique, and 10% alcohol-formalin cell block (CB) technique. Overall morphological details, cellularity, architecture, nuclear and cytoplasmic details were studied in both CSS and CB techniques. Results: In this study, analysis body fluid specimens using cytospin smear and cell block methods revealed that there is no difference between cytospin smear method and CB in defining the benign, fungal and inflammatory conditions. However, CB method could able to identity papillary pattern more efficiently than the cytospin method. Conclusion: Although there was no statistical difference between the results obtained by the cytospin and cell block methods, cell block method in our study accurately diagnosed the cases which were missed or incompletely diagnosed on cytospin smear method. Thus cell block proved to be superior method for the study of effusion as compared to cytospin smear. As the cell blocks permit longer storage and additional analysis such as immunohistochemistry (IHC) and microarray, it should be adopted additionally for effusion cytology. Keywords: Cell block, Cytospin, Cytodiagnosis, adenocarcinoma, Effusion. 1. Thapar M, Mishra RK, Sharma A, Goyal V. Critical analysis of cell block versus smear examination in effusions. Journal of cytology. 2009;26(2):60-4. 2. Koksal D, Demirag F, Bayiz H, Koyuncu A, Mutluay N, Berktas B, et al. The cell block method increases the diagnostic yield in exudative pleural effusions accompanying lung cancer. Turk patoloji dergisi. 2013;29(3):165-70. 3. Walker S, Bibby AC, Maskell NA. Current best practice in the evaluation and management of malignant pleural effusions. Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. 2016. 4. Choong CK. Management of benign and malignant pleural effusions. Thoracic surgery clinics. 2013;23(1):ix. 5. Shivakumarswamy U, Arakeri SU, Karigowdar MH, Yelikar B. Diagnostic utility of the cell block method versus the conventional smear study in pleural fluid cytology. Journal of cytology. 2012;29(1):11-5. 6. Joshi A, Mahajan N, Karmarkar PJ, Mahore SD. Diagnostic utility of various techniques used in body fluid cytology. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS). 2014;13(1):13-8. 7. Pal S, Murmu D, Goswami BK. Ascitic Fluid Cytology in Suspected Malignant Effusions with Special Emphasis on Cell Block Preparation. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2015;4 (60):10488-93. 8. Lippi G, Plebani M. Opportunities and drawbacks of nonstandard body fluid analysis. Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. 2016. 9. Conrad R, Cobb C, Raza A. Role of cytopathology in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal tract cancers. Journal of gastrointestinal oncology. 2012;3(3):285-98. 10. 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. Ethiopian journal of health sciences. 2014;24(2):125-31. 11. Ensani F, Nematizadeh F, Irvanlou G. Accuracy of immunohistochemistry in evaluation of malignant pleural and perito-neal effusions. Polish journal of pathology : official journal of the Polish Society of Pathologists. 2011;62(2):95-100. 12. Ghosh I, Dey SK, Das A, Bhattacharjee D, Gangopadhyay S. Cell block cytology in pleural effusion. Journal of the Indian Medical Association.2012;110(6):390-2, 6. 13. Symmans WF, Ayers M, Clark EA, Stec J, Hess KR, Sneige N, et al. Total RNA yield and microarray gene expression profiles from fine-needle aspiration biopsy and core-needle biopsy samples of breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;97(12):2960-71. 14. Siddiqui MT, Gokaslan ST, Saboorian MH, Carrick K, Ashfaq R. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in detecting carcinoma in bile duct brushings. Cancer. 2003;99(4):205-10. 15. Bhatia P, Dey P, Uppal R, Shifa R, Srinivasan R, Nijhawan R. Cell blocks from scraping of cytology smear: comparison with conventional cell block. Acta cytologica. 2008;52(3):329-33. 16. Mao YY, Yang M, Liu DG, Lin MH, Zhang LQ, Chen ZQ. [Evaluation of immunohistochemistry staining and cytologic diagnosis by using cell block sections prepared with effusion fluid cytology specimens]. Zhonghua bing li xue za zhi = Chinese journal of pathology. 2009;38(8):547-50. 17. Khan N, Sherwani KR, Afroz N, Kapoor S. Usefulness of Cell Blocks Versus smears in Malignant effusion cases. Journal of cytology. 2006;23:129-32. 18. Bista P. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of cell block with cytology smears in serous effusions. Kathmandu, Nepal. . Journal of Pathology of Nepal. 2013;3:482 -6. 19. Gaur D, Chauhan N, Kusum A, Harsh M, Talekar M, Kishore S, et al. Pleural fluid analysis - role in diagnosing pleural malignancy. Journal of cytology. 2007;24(4):183-8. 20. Shobha SN, Kodandaswamy CR. Utility of Modified Cell Block Technique in Cases of Pleural Effusion Suspected of Malignancy International Journal of Health Sciences and Research (IJHSR). 2013;3(1):33-8.Abstract
References