Objective: Oral exfoliative cytology is a sensitive and reliable diagnostic tool for the early diagnosis of oral cancer. Traditional exfoliative cytology, though popular, has limitations which could be overcome using cytocentrifuge preparations. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of cytocentrifuged specimens with that of conventionally prepared smears in the diagnosis of oral premalignancy and malignancy. Study Design: Exfoliative cytology was performed on 30 patients with oral premalignant and malignant lesions. The yield was smeared immediately onto a slide for conventional exfoliative cytology (group A). The lesion was then scraped again and the yield was suspended in a bottle containing a fixative solution for cytocentrifuge apparatus-assisted smearing (group B). Both smears were stained with rapid Papanicolaou stain and assessed for cellularity, cellular and nuclear morphology, evaluation of mitosis and background. Result: All the criteria assessed were statistically significant (p value of <0.001) in group B except for mitosis, which was significant in group A. Conclusion: Cytocentrifuge preparations can preserve the cellular details and reduce the overlapping of cells, enabling precise interpretation and thus aiding in the diagnosis of premalignant and malignant lesions of the oral cavity.

Keywords:
Oral premalignant lesions, Oral cancer, Exfoliative cytology, Cytocentrifuge preparation
1.
Warnakulasuriya S: Global epidemiology of oral and pharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncol 2009;45:309–316.
2.
Ingram RC, Krantz S, Mendeloff J, Leslie H: Exfoliative cytology and the early diagnosis of oral cancer. Cancer 1963;16:160–165.
3.
Livingstone GK, Reed RN, Olson BL, Cockey JE: Induction of nuclear aberrations by smokeless tobacco in epithelial cells of human oral mucosa. Environ Mol Mutagen 1990;15:136–144.
4.
Schulte EKW, Joos U, Kasper M, Eckert HM: Cytological detection of epithelial dysplasia in the oral mucosa using Feulgen-DNA-image cytometry. Diagn Cytopathol 1991;7:436–441.
5.
Ogden GR, Cowpe JG, Green MW: The effect of distant malignancy upon quantitative cytologic assessment of normal oral mucosa. Cancer 1990;65:477–480.
6.
Kobayashi TK, Ueda M, Yamaki T, Yakushji M: Evaluation of cytocentrifuge apparatus with special reference to the cellular recovery rate. Diagn Cytopathol 1992;8:420–423.
7.
Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF: Diagnosis of uterine cancer by the vaginal smear. The Commonwealth Fund, New York, 1943, pp 1–47.
8.
Montgomery PW, Von Haam E: A study of the exfoliative cytology in patients with carcinoma of the oral mucosa. J Dent Res 1951;30:308–313.
9.
Mehrotra R, Hullman M, Smeels R, Reichart TE, Driemel O: Oral cytology revisited. J Oral Pathol Med 2009;38:161–166.
10.
Mehrotra R, Gupta A, Singh M, Ibrahim R: Application of cytology and molecular biology in diagnosing premalignant or malignant oral lesions. Mol Cancer 2006;5:11–23.
11.
Sivapathasundaram B, Kalasagar M: Yet another article on exfoliative cytology. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2004;8:54–57.
12.
Hoda RS: Non-gynecological cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artefacts. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:621–634.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
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.