Objective: To evaluate the usefulness of our original liquid-based cell preparation system AMAPS (aspiration material preparation system) and to compare it with the AutoSmear system in breast aspiration cytology. Study Design: A total of 487 specimens of fine-needle aspiration cytology of the breast were retrieved, of which 250 were processed with AMAPS and 237 with the AutoSmear method (before the introduction of AMAPS). A final histological diagnosis was obtained by an excisional biopsy or a surgical resection in 148 cases. Results: Cell recovery rates were significantly improved with AMAPS (96.8 and 99.1% in Papanicolaou and Diff-Quik, respectively) compared with the AutoSmear method (40.9 and 42.3%, respectively; p < 0.01). Within-run and day-to-day reproducibility of cell recovery was satisfactory, with coefficients of variations of 6.8 and 8.7%, respectively. Following the introduction of AMAPS in breast cytology, the unsatisfactory rate decreased significantly (from 16.0 to 8.8%; p < 0.01), while the diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy did not change (97.8 to 98.1%). Moreover, the diagnostic specificity for benign lesions increased from 75 to 93.8%, thus decreasing the excision rate of fibrocystic disease. Conclusion: AMAPS may serve as an alternative to the conventional technique or commercially available liquid-based cytology systems.

Keywords:
Fine-needle aspiration, AMAPS, Breast, Liquid-based cytology
1.
Hutchinson ML, Cassin CM, Ball HG: The efficacy of an automated preparation device for cervical cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 1991;96:300–305.
2.
Hutchinson ML, Agarwal P, Denault T, Berger B, Cibas ES: A new look at cervical cytology: ThinPrep multicenter trial results. Acta Cytol 1992;36:499–504.
3.
Be’dard YC, Pollett AF: Breast fine-needle aspiration: a comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111:523–527.
4.
Perez-Reyes N, Mulford DK, Rutkowski MA, Logan-Young W, Dawson AE: Breast fine-needle aspiration: a comparison of thin-layer and conventional preparation. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;102:349–353.
5.
Ylagan LR, Zhai J: The value of ThinPrep and cytospin preparation in pleural effusion cytological diagnosis of mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:137–144.
6.
Lee YS, Jin GY, Han YM, Chung MJ, Park HS: Computed tomography-guided transthoracic needle aspiration biopsy of intrapulmonary lesions: utility of a liquid-based cytopreparatory technique. Acta Cytol 2008;52:665–670.
7.
Lee KR, Papillo JL, St John T, Eyerer GJ: Evaluation of the ThinPrep processor for fine needle aspiration specimens. Acta Cytol 1996;40:895–899.
8.
Dey P, Luthra UK, George J, Zuhairy F, George SS, Haji BI: Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations on fine needle aspiration cytology material. Acta Cytol 2000;44:46–50.
9.
Michael CW, Hunter B: Interpretation of fine-needle aspirates processed by the ThinPrep technique: cytologic artifacts and diagnostic pitfalls. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:6–13.
10.
Veneti S, Daskalopoulou D, Zervoudis S, Papasotiriou E, Ioannidou-Mouzaka L: Liquid-based cytology in breast fine needle aspiration: comparison with the conventional smear. Acta Cytol 2003;47:188–192.
11.
Kobayashi TK, Ueda M, Yamaki T, Yakushiji M: Evaluation of cytocentrifuge apparatus with special reference to the cellular recovery rate. Diagn Cytopathol 1992;8:420–423.
12.
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;57:1208–1212.
13.
Biscotti CV, Shorie JH, Gramlich TL, Easley KA: ThinPrep vs. conventional smear cytologic preparations in analyzing fine-needle aspiration specimens from palpable breast masses. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:137–141.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.