Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Non-gynaecological cytology"

ObjectivesTo systematically assess the effects of a Lean management intervention in an academic cytopathology service.MethodsWe monitored outcomes including specimen turnaround times during stepwise implementation of a lean cytopathology workflow for gynaecological and non-gynaecological cytology.ResultsThe intervention resulted in a major reduction of turnaround times for both gynaecological (3rd quartile 4.1 vs 2.3 working days) and non-gynaecological cytology (3rd quartile 1.9 vs. 1.2 working days). Introduction of fully electronic reporting had additional effect over continuous staining of slides alone. The rate of non-gynaecological specimens reported the same day increased from 4.5% to 56.5% of specimens received before noon.ConclusionsLean management principles provide a useful framework for organization of a cytopathology workflow. Stepwise implementation beginning with a simplified gynaecological cytology workflow allowed involved staff to monitor the effects of individual changes and allowed for a smooth transition.

Background: Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) has proven to be less costly and less invasive procedure than biopsy for diagnosing benign and malignant lesions. Of the two methods liquid based cytology (LBC) and conventional cytology (CC), LBC has been standardized as more efficacious in reporting in Gynaecological cases. But, this is still lacking in non-gynaecological cases and many studies are now focusing on studying LBC due to its proven advantages in Pap smear evaluation.Methods: An observational study of 72 patients with lung mass and 11 with mediastinal mass was done for a period of six months in a tertiary care hospital in Gurugram to compare the diagnostic efficacy of LBC and CC in fine needle aspirates from lung/mediastinal mass.Results: Of the 83 cases, reporting of LBC was adequate in 75 cases and CC in only 53 cases. LBC was better when differentiating malignant and benign lesions than CC. CC smears had better cellularity in comparison to LBC smears (36%), but rest cytological features of cytoplasmic detailing, cell architecture, less background debris and blood were all more appreciable in LBC smears than CC preparations.Conclusions: LBC is a better method than conventional smear for smear preparation and processing of aspirates obtained from lung and mediastinal mass.

Introduction: Effusion cytology can be performed for the purpose of diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of malignant disease. A common analysis of effusion cytology samples is the May Grunwald Giemsa stain.    Aim: The aim of the study was to compare May Grunwald Giemsa stain and May Grunwald Giemsa Quick Stain in order to determine the best quality stain and suggest ways to improve the current staining protocol.     Materials and Methods: The methods used in this study are the routine laboratory’s standard procedures for  May-Grunwald Giemsa stain and May-Grunwald Giemsa Quick Stain but with adapted washing steps that investigates the effect of tap water, distilled water, and phosphate buffer on stain quality. Two pleural effusion samples were stained in the initial experiment and two pleural effusions and one ascites sample in the second experiment.    Results and Conclusion: All samples gave a greater score when stained with May-Grunwald Giemsa Quick Stain compared to traditional May-Grunwald Giemsa stain. For the traditional May-Grunwald Giemsa, the use of any of the three phosphate buffers scores higher than the routine washing where tap water is used. In conclusion, it would be of benefit to further investigate and implement phosphate buffer in traditional staining or proceed with the May-Grunwald Quick Stain for all pleural and ascites effusions.

Introduction: Chronic vulval symptoms are common complaints in women seeking health care and can significantly interfere with a woman’s sexual function and sense of well being. Many practitioners feel diagnostically challenged, particularly by chronic or recurrent forms of vulval disease. The aim of this study was to assess the role of various diagnostic modalities in evaluation of chronic vulval symptoms. Methods: Between August 2012 and February 2014, 100 women presenting with chronic vulval symptoms (i.e. ≥ 3 months duration) were evaluated. All of them had a thorough clinical history taken including use of vulval washes and creams, a general and gynaecological examination. Patients having chronic vaginal discharge in addition had urethral, vaginal and cervical smear and culture. All women had a careful examination of the vulva with and without magnification. Vulval scrape cytology was taken after moistening the vulva with normal saline and stained by Pap stain. Colposcopy of the vulva was then carried out after applying 5% acetic acid and 1% toluidine blue dye. Vulval biopsy was taken from suspicious areas on colposcopy and further management was based on histopathology report. Results: The mean age of women in our study was 43.57 years (range 22-80 years.), 70% women were pre-menopausal and 30% were post-menopausal. The mean duration of symptoms was 1.625 years (range 6 months - 15 years) and atypical vulval hygiene practices (excessive washing with soaps) was used in 77% of women. The commonest presenting complaint was pruritus in 92% of women; visible lesions on vulva were seen in 20%, pain in 6% and burning sensation in vulva in 5% of women. The histopathology was abnormal in 77 patients; the most common histopathological finding was non-neoplastic epithelial disorders in 64 women {Squamous cell hyperplasia (n=52), Lichen Sclerosus et atrophicus (n=6), other dermatoses including lichen Planus (n=6)}. Vulvar Intra-epithelial Neoplasia (VIN) was seen in 6 patients, 5 were squamous type VIN and 1 was non-squamous type (Paget’s disease). Squamous cell carcinoma was seen in 3 patients; malignant melanoma, benign appendiceal tumor, angiofibroma and neurofibroma in 1 patient. Examination without magnification had sensitivity of 25.97% and with magnification was 29.87% and specificity was 100% for both of them. Cytology had sensitivity and specificity of 75.32% and 86.95% respectively and sensitivity and specificity of colposcopy was 77.92% and 17.39% respectively. Conclusion: Clinical examination with and without magnification had low sensitivity but were highly specific in diagnosing vulvar lesions. A normal vulval smear and colposcopy have a high negative predictive value and are very reassuring. Colposcopy and biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis, however clinical examination with naked eyes and magnifying glass are invaluable and can diagnose most of the neoplastic lesions.