Display options
Cite
Chong Y, Ji SJ, Kang CS, et al. Can liquid-based preparation substitute for conventional smear in thyroid fine-needle aspiration? A systematic review based on meta-analysis. Endocr Connect. 2017;6(8):817-829doi: 10.1530/EC-17-0165.
Chong, Y., Ji, S. J., Kang, C. S., & Lee, E. J. (2017). Can liquid-based preparation substitute for conventional smear in thyroid fine-needle aspiration? A systematic review based on meta-analysis. Endocrine connections, 6(8), 817-829. https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-17-0165
Chong, Yosep, et al. "Can liquid-based preparation substitute for conventional smear in thyroid fine-needle aspiration? A systematic review based on meta-analysis." Endocrine connections vol. 6,8 (2017): 817-829. doi: https://doi.org/10.1530/EC-17-0165
Chong Y, Ji SJ, Kang CS, Lee EJ. Can liquid-based preparation substitute for conventional smear in thyroid fine-needle aspiration? A systematic review based on meta-analysis. Endocr Connect. 2017 Nov;6(8):817-829. doi: 10.1530/EC-17-0165. Epub 2017 Oct 10. PMID: 29018157; PMCID: PMC5682413.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Endocr Connect. 2017 Nov;6(8):817-829. doi: 10.1530/EC-17-0165. Epub 2017 Oct 10.

Can liquid-based preparation substitute for conventional smear in thyroid fine-needle aspiration? A systematic review based on meta-analysis.

Endocrine connections

Yosep Chong, Soon-Jin Ji, Chang Suk Kang, Eun Jung Lee

Affiliations

  1. Department of Hospital PathologyCollege of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  2. Medical LibraryThe Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  3. Department of Hospital PathologyCollege of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea [email protected].

PMID: 29018157 PMCID: PMC5682413 DOI: 10.1530/EC-17-0165

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Conventional smear (CS) using fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) has been established as the test of choice for diagnosing thyroid lesions, despite low sample adequacy and inter-individual variations. Although a liquid-based preparation (LBP) technique has been recently applied to overcome these limitations, its clinical utility and its accuracy over CS are controversial. This study aimed to determine the true sensitivity and specificity of LBP in thyroid FNAC by meta-analysis.

DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS: We searched major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Google Scholar) with queries of 'thyroid', 'LBP' and 'liquid-based cytology'. Original articles including cytohistologic correlation data comparing the accuracy of any LBP technique, such as ThinPrep, SurePath and Liqui-Prep, with CS were included for qualitative meta-analysis and preparation of synthesized reporter-operating curves (sROC).

RESULTS: A total of 372 studies were screened and 51 original articles were eligible for full-text review; finally, 24 studies were chosen for the meta-analysis. Average sample inadequacy was significantly lower in two mainstream LBP methods (ThinPrep and SurePath) than CS. Specificity and sensitivity by sROC were similar or slightly superior for LBP vs CS. Various cytomorphologic changes by each method have been reported.

CONCLUSIONS: Although a learning curve is essential for adapting to the cytomorphologic features of the LBP technique, our results support the use of two mainstream LBPs alone in thyroid FNAC that LBP will increase the sample adequacy and reduce the workload with similar accuracy. More data and further evaluation are needed for the other LBP methods.

© 2017 The authors.

Keywords: fine-needle aspiration biopsy; liquid-based cytology; liquid-based preparation; meta-analysis; thyroid gland

References

  1. Cytopathology. 2008 Feb;19(1):11-8 - PubMed
  2. J Endocrinol Invest. 2008 Apr;31(4):303-8 - PubMed
  3. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 May;40(5):388-93 - PubMed
  4. Acta Cytol. 2013;57(3):252-8 - PubMed
  5. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 Dec;35(12):792-7 - PubMed
  6. Cytopathology. 2014 Apr;25(2):120-8 - PubMed
  7. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36 - PubMed
  8. Acta Cytol. 2013;57(3):233-40 - PubMed
  9. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001 Jun;24(6):378-83 - PubMed
  10. In Vivo. 2010 May-Jun;24(3):333-7 - PubMed
  11. APMIS. 2013 Feb;121(2):139-45 - PubMed
  12. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004 Jan;30(1):7-13 - PubMed
  13. Cytopathology. 2003 Dec;14(6):343-9 - PubMed
  14. J Endocrinol Invest. 2011 Jul-Aug;34(7):e183-7 - PubMed
  15. Thyroid. 2009 Oct;19(10):1049-52 - PubMed
  16. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995 Aug;104(2):150-3 - PubMed
  17. Acta Cytol. 2006 Mar-Apr;50(2):129-35 - PubMed
  18. Eur J Endocrinol. 2013 Oct 01;169(5):649-55 - PubMed
  19. Acta Cytol. 2008 May-Jun;52(3):313-9 - PubMed
  20. Cytopathology. 2014 Jun;25(3):160-9 - PubMed
  21. Acta Cytol. 2011;55(5):389-400 - PubMed
  22. Cancer Cytopathol. 2011 Feb 25;119(1):58-67 - PubMed
  23. Cancer. 2001 Jun 25;93(3):179-86 - PubMed
  24. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001 Feb;24(2):137-41 - PubMed
  25. Cytopathology. 2000 Apr;11(2):104-15 - PubMed
  26. Diagn Cytopathol. 2016 Apr;44(4):283-90 - PubMed
  27. Cytopathology. 2010 Apr;21(2):97-102 - PubMed
  28. Acta Cytol. 2009 Mar-Apr;53(2):130-6 - PubMed
  29. Acta Cytol. 2006 Jan-Feb;50(1):23-7 - PubMed
  30. Cancer Cytopathol. 2011 Feb 25;119(1):68-73 - PubMed
  31. Thyroid. 2015 Mar;25(3):308-13 - PubMed

Publication Types