Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 8/2017

01-11-2017 | Original Article

Liquid-based versus conventional cytology of oral brush biopsies: a split-sample pilot study

Authors: T.W. Remmerbach, N. Pomjanski, U. Bauer, H. Neumann

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 8/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this prospective split sample study was to evaluate the applicability of liquid-based cytology (LBC) of oral brush biopsies for detection of oral cancer.

Methods

Two different preparation techniques were investigated: the conventional transfer procedure to glass slides and the LBC preparation method. The obtainments of epithelial cells were performed five times with a nylon brush and transferred onto five glass slides. Additionally, the brushes, which were normally discarded, were stored in a fixative solution. Conventional slides and respective thin layers from a total of 113 cases were reviewed with both techniques.

Results

Thin layers showed excellent morphology on a clear background, which allowed an accurate diagnosis. In contrast, the conventional glass slides showed significantly more blood contamination and cell overlapping. The sensitivity of conventional cytological diagnosis was 96.3%, the specificity archived 90.6%, the positive predictive value was 96.3% and the negative predictive value scored 90.6%. The sensitivity of the cytological diagnosis using thin layers archived 97.5%, the specificity was 68.8%, the positive predictive value revealed 88.76% and negative predictive value was 91.7%.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that in oral cytology, LBC may replace other types of wet-fixed preparations using the full amount of collected cells, resulting in enhanced specimen quality archiving comparable values of diagnostic accuracy.

Clinical relevance

LBC facilitates the cell collection due to simpler handling and less transfer errors by dentists and may improve the overall diagnostic accuracy of oral brush biopsies in future.
Literature
1.
Navone R, Burlo P, Pich A, Pentenero M, Broccoletti R, Marsico A, Gandolfo S (2007) The impact of liquid-based oral cytology on the diagnosis of oral squamous dysplasia and carcinoma. Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology 18(6):356–360CrossRef
2.
Franceschi S, Barzan L, Talamini R (1997) Screening for cancer of the head and neck: if not now, when? Oral Oncol 33(5):313–316CrossRefPubMed
3.
Howald HP, Frenz M, Pitz H, Pape HD, Ganzer U, Schmitt G (2005) Results from DÖSAK observational studies. In: carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, heidelberg, pp 173–182
4.
Mehrotra R, Gupta A, Singh M, Ibrahim R (2006) Application of cytology and molecular biology in diagnosing premalignant or malignant oral lesions. Mol Cancer 5:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Remmerbach TW, Weidenbach H, Müller HA, Pomjanski N, Buckstegge B, Böcking A (2003) Diagnostic value of nucleolar organizer regions (AgNORs) in brush biopsies of suspicious lesions of the oral cavity. AnalCell Pathol 25(3):139–146
6.
Kujan O, Desai M, Sargent A, Bailey A, Turner A, Sloan P (2006) Potential applications of oral brush cytology with liquid-based technology: results from a cohort of normal oral mucosa. Oral Oncol 42(8):810–818CrossRefPubMed
7.
Koss LG (1989) The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 261(5):737–743CrossRefPubMed
8.
Hayama FH, Motta AC, Silva AP, Migliari DA (2005) Liquid-based preparations versus conventional cytology: specimen adequacy and diagnostic agreement in oral lesions. Med Oral PatolOral Cir Bucal 10(2):115–122
9.
Kobayashi TK, Ueda M, Nishino T, Terasaki S, Kameyama T (1998) Brush cytology of herpes simplex virus infection in oral mucosa: use of the ThinPrep processor. Diagn Cytopathol 18(1):71–75CrossRefPubMed
10.
Maksem JA, Weidmann J (2001) Specialized preparative devices are not needed for liquid-based, thin-layer cytology: an alternate manual method using a metastable alcoholic gel. Diagn Cytopathol 25(4):262–264CrossRefPubMed
11.
Mollaoglu N, Wilson MJ, Cowpe JG (2001) Extraction of DNA from oral cytological samples by scraping and smear method suitable for restriction site mutation analysis: a pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol 25(2):83–85CrossRefPubMed
12.
Driemel O, Dahse R, Hakim SG, Tsioutsias T, Pistner H, Reichert TE, Kosmehl H (2007) Laminin-5 immunocytochemistry: a new tool for identifying dysplastic cells in oral brush biopsies. Cytopathology 18(6):348–355CrossRefPubMed
13.
Driemel O, Kunkel M, Hullmann M, Kleinsasser N, Staudenmaier R, Muller-Richter U, Reichert TE, Kosmehl H (2008) Performance of conventional oral brush biopsies. HNO 56(2):205–210CrossRefPubMed
14.
Bishop JW, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ, Husain M, Howell LP, McIntosh KM, Taylor DA, Sadeghi MH (1998) Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results 6. Acta Cytol 42(1):189–197CrossRefPubMed
15.
McGoogan E, Reith A (1996) Would monolayers provide more representative samples and improved preparations for cervical screening? Overview and evaluation of systems available 4. Acta Cytol 40(1):107–119CrossRefPubMed
16.
Vassilakos P, Cossali D, Albe X, Alonso L, Hohener R, Puget E (1996) Efficacy of monolayer preparations for cervical cytology: emphasis on suboptimal specimens. Acta Cytol 40(3):496–500CrossRefPubMed
17.
Böcking A, Freudenberg N (1998) Standardisierte Befunderstellung in der extragenitalen Zytologie. Pathologe 19:235–236CrossRef
18.
Howell LP, Davis RL, Belk TI, Agdigos R, Lowe J (1998) The AutoCyte preparation system for gynecologic cytology 3. Acta Cytol 42(1):171–177CrossRefPubMed
19.
Grohs HK, Zahniser D, Geyer JW, Husain OAN (1999) Standardization of specimen preparation through mono/thin-layer technology. In: Automated cervical cancer screening. Igaku Shoin, New York, pp 85–176
20.
Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, Spencer L, Bolick D (2004) Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer 102(5):269–279CrossRefPubMed
21.
Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M, Fox W, Heinzerling RH, Geyer JW, Knesel EA (1996) The false negative rate in cervical cytology. Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears 1. Acta Cytol 40(1):81–89CrossRefPubMed
22.
Allegra SR, Broderick PA, Corvese N (1973) Oral cytology. Seven year oral cytology screening program in the state of Rhode Island. Analysis of 6448 cases. Acta Cytol 17(1):42–48PubMed
23.
Kaugars GE, Silverman S Jr, Ray AK, Page DG, Abbey LM, Burns JC, Svirsky JA (1998) The use of exfoliative cytology for the early diagnosis of oral cancers: is there a role for it in education and private practice? JCancer Educ 13(2):85–89
24.
Dolens Eda S, Nakai FV, Santos Parizi JL, Alborghetti Nai G (2013) Cytopathology: a useful technique for diagnosing oral lesions? A systematic literature review. Diagn Cytopathol 41(6):505–514CrossRefPubMed
25.
Würflinger T, Stockhausen J, Meyer-Ebrecht D, Böcking A (2003) Automatic coregistration, segmentation and classification for multimodal cytopathology. StudHealth TechnolInform 95:218–223
26.
Remmerbach TW, Meyer-Ebrecht D, Aach T, Würflinger T, Bell AA, Schneider TE, Nietzke N, Frerich B, Böcking A (2009) Toward a multimodal cell analysis of brush biopsies for the early detection of oral cancer. Cancer cytopathology 117(3):228–235CrossRefPubMed
27.
Chen C, Yang Z, Li Z, Li L (2012) Accuracy of several cervical screening strategies for early detection of cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 22(6):908–921CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hayama FH, Motta AC, Silva Ade P, Migliari DA (2005) Liquid-based preparations versus conventional cytology: specimen adequacy and diagnostic agreement in oral lesions. Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal 10(2):115–122PubMed
29.
Schneider V, Henry MR, Jimenez-Ayala M, Turnbull LS, Wright TC (2001) Cervical cancer screening, screening errors and reporting. Acta Cytol 45(4):493–498CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Liquid-based versus conventional cytology of oral brush biopsies: a split-sample pilot study
Authors
T.W. Remmerbach
N. Pomjanski
U. Bauer
H. Neumann
Publication date
01-11-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 8/2017
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2047-9

Other articles of this Issue 8/2017

Clinical Oral Investigations 8/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Early bone formation around immediately loaded implants with nanostructured calcium-incorporated and machined surface: a randomized, controlled histologic and histomorphometric study in the human posterior maxilla

Original Article

Gingival recessions of lower incisors after proclination by orthodontics alone or in combination with anterior mandibular alveolar process distraction osteogenesis

Original Article

Does dental trauma in the primary dentition increases the likelihood of trauma in the permanent dentition? A longitudinal study

Original Article

Evaluation of ultrasonic and conventional surgical techniques for genioplasty combined with two different osteosynthesis plates: a cadaveric study

Original Article

Influence of enamel/dentin thickness on the toxic and esthetic effects of experimental in-office bleaching protocols

Original Article

In-vitro performance of CAD/CAM-fabricated implant-supported temporary crowns