Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: A pilot study
dc.contributor.author | Michael, Claire W. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | McConnel, James | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Pecott, James | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Afify, Alaa M. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Al-Khafaji, Basim M. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-04-19T14:22:54Z | |
dc.date.available | 2006-04-19T14:22:54Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2001-09 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Michael, Claire W.; McConnel, James; Pecott, James; Afify, Alaa M.; Al-Khafaji, Basim (2001)."Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: A pilot study." Diagnostic Cytopathology 25(3): 177-184. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/35308> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 8755-1039 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1097-0339 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/35308 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=11536442&dopt=citation | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | ThinPrep (TP) and TriPath PREP (TriP) are two liquid-based cytologic preparations that produce a thin layer of cells. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy and different cytomorphologic alterations produced by these preparations in nongynecologic specimens. Samples from 10 urines (3 urothelial carcinomas and 7 negative), 4 positive serous fluids, and 7 fine-needle aspirates (FNAs) were prepared by both techniques. FNAs represented one each of: Hashimoto's thyroiditis (HT), hyperplastic colloid nodule (HCN), Hodgkin's lymphoma, liposarcoma, chondrosarcoma, squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC) metastatic to the lymph node, and carcinoid tumor. All 5 participants, none of whom had prior knowledge of the clinical history or histologic diagnosis, reviewed and interpreted the slides. Both techniques produced a clean background and were equally accurate in urines, serous fluids, and three FNAs. TriP was slightly more accurate in four FNAs: HCN and HT where colloid and lymphocytes were better represented, SCC where keratin and malignant cells were more readily identified among lymphocytes, and carcinoid which was easier to evaluate on TriP due to less cellular shrinkage and more dispersion of cells between aggregates. TP preparations had more cell shrinkage, and the chromatin was harder to evaluate. Both techniques produced artificial aggregations of lymphocytes, but TriP had a more evenly dispersed single-cell population between aggregates, rendering them easier to evaluate for atypia. TP produced fragmentation of large sheets that were flattened, while TriP contained larger branching sheets in a three-dimensional (3-D) configuration. TP produced a true monolayer of cells that were all spread at the same plane, while in TriP the cells were spread at slightly different planes, requiring frequent focusing of the viewed plane. While both techniques are acceptable for diagnostic purposes, they both introduce new cytomorphologic alterations that pathologists need to recognize. TriP seems superior to TP in FNAs specimens where preservation of architecture and cellular integrity are important considerations. Diagn. Cytopathol. 25:177–184, 2001. © 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 263263 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3118 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Life and Medical Sciences | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Cancer Research, Oncology and Pathology | en_US |
dc.title | Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: A pilot study | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Pathology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ; Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Room 2G332/Box 0054, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0054 | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Department of Pathology, Piedmont Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 11536442 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/35308/1/2033_ftp.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dc.2033 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Diagnostic Cytopathology | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.