Objectives: Since malignant cells were first detected in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), numerous methods have been used for CSF examination. The cytocentrifugation and liquid-based cytology (LBC) methods are two of these. We aimed to investigate whether the results from the LBC method were different from the results of the cytological diagnosis of the CSF materials that were prepared using the cytocentrifugation method. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the pathological records of 3,491 (cytocentrifugation on 1,306 and LBC on 2,185) cytological specimens of CSF which were diagnosed over a 4-year period between January 2007 and December 2011. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the results of the LBC and cytocentrifugation methods. Results: While there was a noticeable decrease in nondiagnostic diagnosis and a slight decrease in suspicious diagnosis, there was an increase in malignant and benign diagnosis with the LBC method in comparison to the centrifugation method. Statistically, the decrease in nondiagnostic diagnosis was considered significant (p < 0.0001). Discussion: The LBC method seems like a better option than the cytocentrifugation method, because of many preparatory, screening and diagnostic advantages, especially in pathology departments where materials come from far away and large volumes are examined.

1.
Savage NM, Crosby JH, Reid-Nicholson MD: The cytologic findings in choroid plexus carcinoma: report of a case with differential diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:1-6.
2.
Hoda RS: Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artifacts. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:621-634.
3.
Michael CW, McConnel J, Pecott J, Afify AM, Al-Khafaji B: Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: a pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:177-184.
4.
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.
5.
Dey P, Luthra UK, George J, Zuhairy F, George SS, Haji BI: Comparison of ThinPrep and preparations on fine needle aspiration cytology material. Acta Cytol 2000;44:46-50.
6.
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.
7.
Salhadar A, Massarini-Wafai R, Wojcik EM: Routine use of ThinPrep method in fine-needle aspiration material as an adjunct to standard smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:101-103.
8.
Cytyc Corporation Headquarters: ThinPrep 2000 System Operator's Manual. Marlborough, Cytyc Corporation, 2010.
9.
Schinstine M, Filie AC, Wilson W, Stetler-Stevenson M, Abati A: Detection of malignant hematopoietic cells in cerebral spinal fluid previously diagnosed as atypical or suspicious. Cancer 2006;108:157-162.
10.
Sioutopoulou DO, Kampas LI, Gerasimidou D, Valeri RM, Boukovinas I, Tsavdaridis D, Destouni CT: Diagnosis of metastatic tumors in cerebrospinal fluid samples using thin-layer cytology. Acta Cytol 2008;52:304-308.
11.
Dabbs DJ, Abendroth CS, Grenko RT, Wang X, Radcliffe GE: Immunocytochemistry on the ThinPrep processor. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:388-392.
12.
Fadda G, Rossi ED, Mule A, Miraglia A, Vecchio FM, Capelli A: Diagnostic efficacy of immunocytochemistry on fine needle aspiration biopsies processed by thin-layer cytology. Acta Cytol 2006;50:129-135.
13.
Rosenthal DL, Mandell DB: Central nervous system; in Keebler CM, Somrak TM (eds): The Manual of Cytotechnology, ed 7. Chicago, American Society of Clinical Pathologists, 1993, pp 207-217.
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.