Objective: To compare results of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and the conventional smear method (SMEAR) when performing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for lesions of suspected pancreatic malignancy without an on-site cytopathologist. Study Design: Fifty-eight patients were prospectively enrolled between July and December 2009. Aspirates obtained from the first needle pass were randomized either to SMEAR or LBC. Another sample from the second needle pass was allocated to the other method. The rest of the aspirates from the third or later needle passes were used for SMEAR. Diagnostic accuracy was compared and related factors were pursued. Results: Although both methods were 100% specific, LBC was inferior to SMEAR in terms of sensitivity, negative predictive value, and accuracy. However, LBC provided correct diagnoses in 2 out of 3 cases of false negatives for malignancy by SMEAR in which blood was highly contaminated. Although no factor was identified for LBC, low blood contamination and more than 3 needle passes were related with accurate diagnosis in SMEAR. Conclusion: LBC was less accurate than SMEAR when performing pancreatic EUS-FNA without an on-site cytopathologist. However, LBC might serve as a good complement to SMEAR if blood contamination is profound.

Keywords:
Liquid-based cytology, Smear, Prospective trial, Endoscopic ultrasound, Fine needle aspiration
© 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.