4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

A Superior Method for Cell Block Preparation for Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsies

期刊

CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 124, 期 7, 页码 508-518

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21722

关键词

cell block; collodion bag; fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy; HistoGel; saline plasma thrombin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Cell block (CB) techniques for fine-needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs) vary. A direct comparison of CB techniques with statistical validation was performed to identify the best method. METHODS: Three CB techniques were compared: 1) FNAB rinsed in saline and clotted with plasma and thrombin (SPT); 2) FNAB rinsed in formalin and clotted with HistoGel (HG); and 3) FNAB rinsed in formalin, centrifuged, and the pellet captured in a collodion bag (ColB). FNAB was performed on 35 random surgical specimens for smears and each CB technique. A randomized blinded review of hematoxylin and eosin-stained CB slides was performed and each case was scored on a scale of 1 to 3 for cellularity, preservation, and architecture and the overall best CB was identified. Significance was determined by the Mann-Whitney U test for nonparametric ordinal data. RESULTS: The mean cellularity score was 1.71 for SPT (standard deviation [SD], 0.89), 1.68 for HG (SD, 0.67), and 3.0 for ColB (SD, 0). The mean preservation score was 1.31 for SPT (SD, 0.58), 1.54 for HG (SD, 0.70), and 2.91 for ColB (SD, 0.37). The mean architecture score was 1.45 for SPT (SD, 0.70), 1.43 for HG (SD, 0.60), and 2.71 for ColB (SD, 0.57). There was no statistical significance noted between SPT or HG when compared for each category. ColB was found to be superior to both SPT and HG when compared for each category (P<.05). The overall best CB was obtained with ColB in 33 of 35 cases (94%), with SPT proving superior in 1 of 35 cases (3%) and HG superior in 1 of 35 cases (3%). CONCLUSIONS: ColB appears to be a superior technique for CB, yielding greater cellularity, preservation, and architecture in the majority of cases. (C) 2016 American Cancer Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据