Objective: Liquid-based cytology of nongynecological specimens is commonly used in cytology laboratories throughout the world and various processing methods, such as ThinPrep and SurePath, have been reported. The cytological features and performance of liquid-based cytology for various cytology specimens, including body cavity fluids, urine, brushing specimens and fine-needle aspiration of various lesions, were reviewed and compared with the experience of our laboratory and the literature published in PubMed. Study Design: The parameters for the evaluation of liquid-based cytology and conventional smears were described in the various types of specimens. Criteria for the interpretation of nongynecological liquid-based cytology were highlighted to show differences in cell morphology, background and artifacts. Results: The interpretation requires familiarity with the appearance of liquid-based cytology in the various types of preparations to avoid misdiagnosis. Conclusions: Cell blocks can be prepared with specimens preserved in a liquid-based cytology medium and immunocytochemical stains and molecular testing can be successfully performed. These are important adjuncts in order to reach a definitive diagnosis.

1.
Bibbo M, Wilbur DC: Comprehensive cytopathology; in Marluce B and Nasuti JF (eds): Evaluations of the Sample in Smears and Liquid-Based Preparations. Philadelphia, Saunders, 2008, pp 65-74.
2.
Hoda RS: Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artifacts. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:621-634.
3.
Bibbo M, Akerman M, Alves VA, et al: How technology is reshaping the practice of nongynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol 2007;51:123-152.
4.
Deshou H, Changhua W, Qinyan L, Wei L, Wen F: Clinical utility of Liqui-PREP™ cytology system for primary cervical cancer screening in a large urban hospital setting in China. J Cytol 2009;26:20-25.
5.
van Hemel BM, Buikema HJ, Groen H, Suurmeijer AJ: Accuracy of a low-priced liquid-based method for cervical cytology in 632 women referred for colposcopy after a positive Pap smear. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:579-583.
6.
Rimiene J, Petronyte J, Gudleviciene Z, Smailyte G, Krasauskaite I, Laurinavicius A: A Shandon PapSpin liquid-based gynecological test: a split-sample and direct-to-vial test with histology follow-up study. Cytojournal 2010;7:2.
7.
Kubushiro K, Taoka H, Sakurai N, Yamamoto Y, Kurasaki A, Asakawa Y, Iwahara M, Takahashi K: Newly developed liquid-based cytology. TACAS™: cytological appearance and HPV testing using liquid-based sample. Hum Cell 2011;24:115-120.
8.
Kuramoto H, Iwami Y, Sugimoto N, Kato C, Sugahara T, Iida M: Application of a new liquid-based procedure (TACAS) for the screening of cervical cancer: a preliminary study. Acta Cytol 2012;56:74-79.
9.
Ruengkhachorn I, Laiwejpithaya S, Leelaphatanadit C, Chaopotong P: Clinicopathologic importance of women with squamous cell carcinoma cytology on Siriraj liquid-based cervical cytology. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012;13:4567-4570.
10.
Stabile SA, Evangelista DH, Talamonte VH, Lippi UG, Lopes RG: Comparative study of the results from conventional cervico-vaginal oncotic cytology and liquid-based cytology. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 2012;10:466-472.
11.
Alaghehbandan R: Performance of the CellSolutions Glucyte liquid-based cytology in comparison with the ThinPrep and SurePath methods. Acta Cytol 2013;57:189-197.
12.
Kavatkar AN, Nagwanshi CA, Dabak SM: Study of a manual method of liquid-based cervical cytology. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2008;51:190-194.
13.
Nandini NM, Nandish SM, Pallavi P, Akshatha SK, Chandrashekhar AP, Anjali S, Dhar M: Manual liquid-based cytology in primary screening for cervical cancer - a cost-effective preposition for scarce resource settings. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012;13:3645-3651.
14.
Dey P, Luthra UK, George J, Zuhairy F, George SS, Haji BI: Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations on fine-needle aspiration cytology material. Acta Cytol 2000;44:46-50.
15.
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.
16.
Gupta RK, Naran S, Lallu S, Fauck R: Cytodiagnosis of neoplasms of the central nervous system in cerebrospinal fluid samples with an application of selective immunostains in differentiation. Cytopathology 2004;15:38-43.
17.
Sioutopoulou DO, Kampas LI, Gerasimidou D, et al: Diagnosis of metastatic tumors in cerebrospinal fluid samples using thin-layer cytology. Acta Cytol 2008;52:304-308.
18.
Ylagan LR, Zhai J: The value of ThinPrep and cytospin preparation in pleural effusion cytological diagnosis of mesothelioma and adenocarcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:137-144.
19.
Piaton E, Faÿnel J, Hutin K, Ranchin MC, Cottier M: Conventional liquid-based techniques versus Cytyc ThinPrep processing of urinary samples: a qualitative approach. BMC Clin Pathol 2005;5:9-14.
20.
Lauricica R, Bentz JS, Souers RJ, et al: Do liquid-based preparations of urinary cytology perform differently than classically prepared cases? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134:19-22.
21.
Clayton AC, Bentz JS, Wasserman PG, Schwartz MR, Souers RJ, Chmara BA, Laucirica R, Clary KM, Moriarty AT; College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Resource Committee: Comparison of ThinPrep preparations to other preparation types in gastrointestinal cytology: observations from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134:1116-1120.
22.
Parfitt JR, McLachlin CM, Weir MM: Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional smears in salivary gland fine-needle aspiration biopsies. Cancer 2007;111:123-129.
23.
Singhi AD, Westra WH: Comparison of human papillomavirus in situ hybridization and p16 immunohistochemistry in the detection of human papillomavirus-associated head and neck cancer based on a prospective clinical experience. Cancer 2010;116:2166-2173.
24.
Strati K, Lambert PF: Role of Rb-dependent and Rb-independent functions of papillomavirus E7 oncogene in head and neck cancer. Cancer Res 2007;67:11585-11593.
25.
El-Naggar AK, Westra WH: p16 expression as a surrogate marker for HPV-related oropharyngeal carcinoma: a guide for interpretative relevance and consistency. Head Neck 2012;34:459-461.
26.
Holmes BJ, Westra WH: The expanding role of cytopathology in the diagnosis of HPV-related squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Diagn Cytopathol 2014;42:85-93.
27.
Solomides CC, Bibbo M, Wang ZX: Assessment of fine-needle aspiration specimen adequacy for high-risk HPV detection and genotyping in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Cytol 2012;56:196-198.
28.
Bishop JA, Maleki Z, Valsamakis A, Ogawa T, Chang X, Pai SI, Westra WH: Application of the hybrid capture 2 assay to squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck: a convenient liquid-phase approach for the reliable determination of human papillomavirus status. Cancer Cytopathol 2012;120:18-25.
29.
Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V: Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations. Nongynecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:368-371.
30.
Jing X, Wey E, Michael CW: Diagnostic value of fine-needle aspirates processed by ThinPrep® for the assessment of axillary lymph node status in patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. Cytopathology 2013;24:372-376.
31.
Papadopoulos O, Konofaos P, Georgoulakis J, Chrisostomidis C, Tsantoulas Z, Kostopoulos E, Stratigos A, Karipidis D, Karakitsos P: The role of ThinPrep cytology in the investigation of SLN status in patients with cutaneous melanoma. Surg Oncol 2007;16:121-129.
32.
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.
33.
Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Wu HH. Comparison of ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens. Cancer 2006;108:144-149.
34.
Fadda G, Rossi ED, Mulè 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.
35.
Malle D, Valeri RM, Photiou C, Kaplanis K, Andreadis C, Tsavdaridis D, Destouni C: Significance of immunocytochemical expression of E-cadherin, N-cadherin and CD44 in serous effusions using liquid-based cytology. Acta Cytol 2005;49:11-16.
36.
Jing X, Li QK, Bedrossian U, Michael CW: Morphologic and immunocytochemical performances of effusion cell blocks prepared using 3 different methods. Am J Clin Pathol 2013;139:177-182.
37.
Konofaos P, Kontzoglou K, Parakeva P, Kittas C, Margari N, Giaxnaki E, Pouliakis M, Kouraklis G, Karakitsos P: The role of ThinPrep cytology in the investigation of ki-67 index, p53 and HER-2 detection in fine-needle aspirates of breast tumors. J BUON 2013;18:352-358.
38.
Van Noorden S, Lampert IA, Xue SA, Lykidis D, Phillips JA, Molyneux E, Griffin BE: Burkitt's lymphoma: maximising the use of fine-needle aspirates by long-term preservation for diagnosis and research. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2011;105:86-94.
39.
Rossi ED, Larghi A, Verna EC, Martini M, Galasso D, Carnuccio A, Larocca LM, Costamagna G, Fadda G: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with liquid-based cytologic preparation in the diagnosis of primary pancreatic lymphoma. Pancreas 2010;39:1299-1302.
40.
He QL, Zhu YZ, Zheng GJ, Shi LC, Hu SW, Li CT: A new convenient technique for making cell blocks. Cell Tissue Res 2012;350:395-400.
41.
Wagner DG, Russell DK, Benson JM, Schneider AE, Hoda RS, Bonfiglio TA: Cellient™ automated cell block versus traditional cell block preparation: a comparison of morphologic features and immunohistochemical staining. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:730-736.
42.
Nguyen NQ, Lim K, Ruszkiewicz A: Preparation technique for cytologic study of EUS-guided FNA samples when onsite cytopathologist is absent: cell block, smear, or both? ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, San Francisco, January 2011 (abstract 176). J Clin Oncol 2011;29(suppl 4).
43.
Bhatia P, Dey P, Uppal R, Shifa R, Srinivasan R, Nijhawan R: Cell blocks from scraping of cytology smear: comparison with conventional cell block. Acta Cytol 2008;52:329-333.
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.