Comparing the Manual Liquid-Based Cytology with the Conventional Method in Bronchoaleolar Lavage Aspiration(BAL)/Bronchial Wash Fluids
Author(s):
Dr Dayal singh Bisht, and Dr Sanjukta
The technique of Liquid-Based Cytology, is the advanced methods of preparing cytology specimen, has surpassed conventional pap smears because it has enhanced fixation, minimized interference, and reliable cell transfer. In LBC, samples are gathered by completely immersing the sampling device in a vial filled with a preservative solution, which facilitates the concurrent preservation and fixation of cells, in contrast to traditional smears where the sample is applied to a glass slide and fixed subsequently. Currently, there are two primary methods for liquid preparation - ThinPrep and SurePath. In our research, the goal was to compare the manual liquid-based cytology with the conventional method in bronchoalveolar lavageaspiration (BAL)/bronchial wash fluids.
Aim: The aim was to compare the manual liquid-based cytology with the conventional method in bronchoalveolar lavage aspiration (BAL) /bronchial wash fluids.
Material and Methods: A total of 100 Brochoalveolar lavage aspiration samples were analyzed in this prospective investigation utilizing conventional method preparations and manual liquid-based cytology. Cellularity, background, cellular preservation, and nuclear preservation were evaluated in both manual liquid-based cytology smears and direct smears. A cytopathologist independently examined the slides. For the purpose of statistical evaluation, the Chai-square test was utilized to determine the p-value and to assess the histopathological correlation.
Result: The cellularity observed in MLBC and conventional smears is similar, but the MLBC approach improves the evaluation of cell morphology by reducing nucleus overlap, haemorrhage, and necrosis. The recorded P value was below 0.05, which is considered statistically significant. The sensitivity rates were 18.9% for CC and 34.5% for LBC, respectively, while the specificity for both methods was 42.7% and 47.5%. Consequently, LBC demonstrated a slightly superior sensitivity in this analysis. Likewise, the negative predictive value showed a slight enhancement with LBC technology (55.1% for LBC compared to 50.0% for CC). The positive predictive values were 100% for LBC and 55.6% for CC across both techniques.
Conclusion: In contrast to traditional BAL fluid methods, the MLBC preparation in BAL aspiration fluid is safe, straightforward, and quick, potentially offering significant diagnostic advantages; however, utilizing both CS and MLBC preparations is advised for enhanced diagnostic outcomes.