Objective: To re-evaluate the reproducibility of additional slides prepared from residual cervical ThinPrep (TP) samples. Study Design: Sixty paired specimens (conventional smears and direct-to-vial TP) were studied. Up to 10 additional slides were prepared from each TP vial. All slides were reviewed for adequacy of material, presence of abnormal cells and presence of normal flora or other pathogens. The additional TP slides were further evaluated for the presence of diagnostic elements which were not found on the conventional smear and primary TP slide. Results: Abnormal cells found on the primary TP slide were also identified on all additional slides in 48/50 cases (96%) with squamous cell lesions. The distribution of material on TP slides was evaluated as homogenous in 51 cases (85%) and as non-homogenous in 9 (15%). Using the primary slides (conventional smear and TP) as a reference, additional diagnostic cells upgrading the cytologic diagnosis were found on the repeat slides in 7 cases (11.7%) and fungi consistent with Candida in 3 (5%). Conclusion: Repeat processing of residual cervical TP samples may not be an invariably reproducible procedure and the first slide may not be necessarily representative of the specimen as a whole. Nevertheless, both primary and repeat TP slides seem to be extremely effective in detecting a lesion (regardless of grade) in abnormal cases. The exact impact of non-homogeneous sampling of the vial on the diagnostic accuracy of the TP method should be further investigated.

Keywords:
Additional slides, Cervical sampling, Conventional smear, Liquid-based cytology, ThinPrep
1.
Strander B, Andersson-Ellstrom A, Milsom I, Radberg T, Ryd W: Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer 2007;111:285–291.
2.
Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B: Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:308–317.
3.
Schledermann D, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B: Improvement of diagnostic accuracy and screening conditions with liquid-based cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:780–785.
4.
Tezuka F, Oikawa H, Shuki H, Higashiiwai H: Diagnostic efficacy and validity of the ThinPrep method in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1996;40:513–518.
5.
Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, Hurley AA, Douglass KL, Mui KK, Patten FW, Zahniser DJ: Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep processor. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:215–219.
6.
Rinas AC, Mittman BW Jr, Le LV, Hartmann K, Cayless J, Singh HK: Split-sample analysis of discarded cells from liquid-based Pap smear sampling devices. Acta Cytol 2006;50:55–62.
7.
Massarani-Wafai R, Bakhos R, Wojcik EM, Selvaggi SM: Evaluation of cellular residue in the ThinPrep PreservCyt TM vial. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:208–212.
8.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al: The 2001 Bethesda system : terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114–2119.
9.
Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, Spencer L, Bolick D: Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer 2004;102:269–279.
10.
Kabbani W, Raisanen J, Thomas S, Saboorian MH, Ashfaq R: Cell block findings from residual Preservcyt™ samples in unsatisfactory ThinPrep Paps: no additional benefit. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;27:238–243.
11.
Hoerl HD, Wagner JL, De Las Casas LE, Shalkham JE, Hafez GR, Kurtycz DF: Utility of additional slides from residual Preservcyt material in difficult ThinPrep gynecologic specimens: a prospective study of 58 cases. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:141–147.
12.
Bentz JS, Rowe LR, Gopez EV, Marshall CJ: The unsatisfactory ThinPrep Pap Test: missed opportunity for disease detection? Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:457–463.
13.
Wallace WA, Monaghan HM, Salter DM, Gibbons MA, Skwarski K: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and liquid-based thin-later cytology. J Clin Pathol 2007;60:388–391.
14.
Anderson CE, Duvall E, Wallace WA: A single ThinPrep slide may not be representative in all head and neck fine needle aspirate specimens. Cytopathology 2009;20:87–90
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
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.