Background: Peritoneal washing cytology has become an accepted method in evaluating gynecology malignancies. Objective: The aim of this work was to compare the conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology (LBC), and cell block in the evaluation of peritoneal fluid. Materials and Methods: A total of 48 cases with ovarian and uterine malignancy were included in this study. The age of the patients varied from 15 to 71 years. All the 48 cases were subjected to conventional smear, LBC, and cell block preparation. Results: The results of LBC and conventional methods were in line with all cytological criteria, except for the background (p = 0.045), but no significant difference was found regarding adequacy (p = 0.12), cellularity (p = 0.13), cell architecture (p = 0.751), nuclear details (p = 0.96), and cytoplasmic details (p = 0.32). The kappa correlation between conventional cytology and LBC, conventional cytology and cell block, and LBC and cell block was 0.769, 0.791, and 0.945, respectively. The most prevalent malignancy which led to peritoneal fluid involvement was papillary serous carcinoma of the ovary. Conclusion: Compared to conventional cytology, the liquid-based method had no significant superiority in the evaluation of the peritoneal fluid method, but the combined usage of smears and cell block improved the diagnostic accuracy of the peritoneal washing samples in different gynecological malignancies.

Keywords:
Conventional cytology, Liquid-based cytology, Cell block, Peritoneal fluid, Gynecology malignancy
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
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.