Objectives: To describe the pitfalls encountered in switching over from conventional smears (CSm) to liquid-based cytology (LBC). To explore modifications of our usual diagnostic criteria. Study Design: 190 ThinPrep breast samples with paired biopsies were retrospectively evaluated by two breast cytopathologists experienced only in CSm. They were again studied after LBC training. The diagnostic performances were compared. In additional calculations we included those C4/suspicious samples containing 70% high-grade nuclei and up to 30% nonmalignant cells in the C5/positive category, simulating that they harbored a malignant one-cell population. We prospectively validated this modification of our diagnostic criteria. Results: Training resulted in higher complete sensitivity: 94 versus 86% (p value 0.003) and lower false negative ratio: 4 versus 12% (p value 0.003). Training generated higher complete sensitivity than collaboration without training: 94 versus 89% (p value 0.008). In the simulation, the modified criteria increased absolute sensitivity to 74% with a 0.6% false positive rate. In the validation series, they generated up to 91% absolute sensitivity, 12% suspicious rate and no false negative and false positive diagnoses. Conclusion: Training in breast LBC may increase diagnostic performance. Samples containing 70% high-grade nuclei or more can be categorized as malignant.

Keywords:
Breast lesions, Fine needle aspiration cytology, Liquid-based cytology, Training, Diagnostic accuracy
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
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.