Introduction: The aim of this study is to discover a fast and efficient method for the diagnosis of serous effusion cytology specimens by comparing the cytomorphological features of SurePath (SP) smears and smears prepared by cytospin. After the macroscopic features of the incoming material were recorded, it was divided into 2 for conventional technique (CT) and liquid-based technique. Cytospin was used for CT and SurePath for liquid-based technique in this study. Materials and Methods: 243 serous effusions (33 thoracentesis and 92 paracentesis fluids, 118 peritoneal lavage fluids) were investigated. After shaking the effusion gently, it was centrifuged for 5 min at 1,250 rpm for cytospin smear. SP smear was prepared according to the “BD PrepStain slide processor”. Two smears were prepared with these 2 methods and then stained with Papanicolaou. The smears were examined under a light microscope in terms of fixation, background, cellularity, nucleus, and structural features. All statistical analysis of the data was performed using the SPSS 17.0 software. For each microscopic feature, the χ2 test was used to assess the significance of the relationship between cytospin and SP, and level of agreement in between the methods was assessed using the kappa statistic. Results: A statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 methods in background (p < 0.001), cellularity (p < 0.001), nucleus features (p < 0.001), and structural features (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in fixation. Low level of agreement was observed with the kappa statistic in fixation, background, and cellularity. Moderate level of agreement was observed in the nucleus and structural feature groups with the kappa statistic. Discussion/Conclusion: Although there are advantages of liquid-based technique such as standardized fixation and cleaner background, since the cellular and background components required for morphological analysis and diagnosis are better preserved in cytospin, it is considered to be better to use liquid-based technique not alone but together with CT.

1.
Bernard
N
.
Pleural, peritoneal and pericardial effusion
. In:
Bibbo
M
,
Wilbur
DC
, editors.
Comprehensive cytopathology
. 3rd ed.
Philadelphia
:
Saunders, Elsevier
;
2008
. p.
515
.
2.
Cibas
ES
.
Cytology: diagnostic principles and clinical correlates
. 4th ed.
Philadelphia
:
Elsevier Saunders
;
2014
. p.
127
53
.
3.
Gabriel
C
,
Achten
R
,
Drijkoningen
M
.
Use of liquid-based cytology in serous fluids: a comparison with conventional cytopreparatory techniques
.
Acta Cytol
.
2004
;
48
:
825
35
. .
4.
Bhanvadia Viral
M
,
Santwani
PM
,
Vachhani
JH
.
Analysis of diagnostic value of cytological smear method versus cell block method in body fluid cytology: study of 150 cases
.
Ethiop J Heal
.
2014
;
24
:
125
31
.
5.
Leung
CS
,
Chiu
B
,
Bell
V
.
Comparison of thinprep and conventional preparations: nongynecologic cytology evaluation
.
Diagn Cytopathol
.
1996
;
16
:
368
71
. .
6.
Gray
W
,
Kocjan
G
.
Diagnostic cytopathology
. 3rd ed.
London: Churchill Livingstone
;
2010
. p.
115
75
.
7.
Shambayati
B
.
Cytopathology
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
;
2011
. p.
209
46
.
8.
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
84
. .
9.
Alwahaibi
N
,
Alnoumani
NS
,
Bai
UR
.
Comparison of thinprep and conventional preparations for peritoneal and pleural cytology smears
.
Annu Res Rev Biol
.
2014
;
4
(
20
):
3139
49
. .
10.
Dadhich
H
,
Toi
PC
,
Siddaraju
N
,
Sevvanthi
K
.
A comparative analysis of conventional cytopreparatory and liquid based cytological techniques (sure path) in evaluation of serous effusion fluids
.
Diagn Cytopathol
.
2016 Nov
;
44
(
11
):
874
9
. .
11.
Hoda
RS
.
Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artifacts
.
Diagn Cytopathol
.
2007
;
35
(
10
):
621
34
. .
12.
Moriarty
AT
,
Schwartz
MR
,
Ducatman
BS
,
Booth
CN
,
Haja
J
.
A liquid concept – do classic preparations of body cavity fluid perform differently than thinprep cases? Observations from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in nongynecologic cytology
.
Arch Pathol Lab Med
.
2008
;
132
:
1716
8
.
13.
Amiri
Z
,
Momtahan
M
,
Mokhtari
M
.
Comparison of conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology, and cell block in the evaluation of peritoneal fluid in gynecology malignancies
.
Acta Cytol
.
2019
;
63
:
63
72
. .
14.
Elsheikh
TM
,
Kirkpatrick
JL
,
Wu
HH
.
Comparison of thinprep and cytospin preparations in the evaluation of exfoliative cytology specimens
.
Cancer
.
2006
;
108
(
3
):
144
9
. .
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.