Rapid on-site evaluation of transbronchial aspirates: Randomised comparison of two methods

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorDiacon A.H.
dc.contributor.authorKoegelenberg C.F.N.
dc.contributor.authorSchubert P.
dc.contributor.authorBrundyn K.
dc.contributor.authorLouw M.
dc.contributor.authorWright C.A.
dc.contributor.authorBolliger C.T.
dc.date.accessioned2011-05-15T16:16:23Z
dc.date.available2011-05-15T16:16:23Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.description.abstractThe value of different staining methods for rapid analysis of transbronchial needle aspirates during bronchoscopy has not been explored. In the present study, we compared a Papanicolaou-based rapid stain, prepared by a technologist and read by a cytopathologist, and a Wright-Giemsa-based rapid stain, prepared and read by a cytopathologist alone. Gold standard was the final laboratory report issued on each aspirate. We harvested 827 aspirates from 218 target sites in 126 consecutive patients. At least one positive aspirate was found in 99 (79%) patients. In those 99 patients, 288 of 574 (50%) aspirates were positive for neoplastic (83%) or non-neoplastic (17%) disease. False-negative aspirates and target sites were more frequent with the rapid Wright-Giemsa than with the rapid Papanicolaou stain (14.2 versus 7.3%, p=0.008, and 13.7 versus 3.6%, p=0.021, respectively). The sensitivity of the Wright-Giemsa-based and Papanicolaou-based rapid stains for detecting diagnostic material was 93 and 100% in patients, 83.1 and 95.5% in target sites, and 72.8 and 84.9% in aspirates, respectively. Specificity was 100% for both methods in patients and target sites, and 90.4 and 95% in aspirates. We concluded that a Papanicolaou-based stain has superior yield and accuracy to a Wright-Giemsa-based stain for rapid on-site evaluation of transbronchial needle aspirates. Copyright©ERS 2010.
dc.description.versionArticle
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Respiratory Journal
dc.identifier.citation35
dc.identifier.citation6
dc.identifier.issn09031936
dc.identifier.other10.1183/09031936.00050809
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/13760
dc.subjectadult
dc.subjectarticle
dc.subjectbronchoscopy
dc.subjectcytopathology
dc.subjectdiagnostic accuracy
dc.subjectfalse negative result
dc.subjectfemale
dc.subjectGiemsa stain
dc.subjectgold standard
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjecthuman cell
dc.subjectintermethod comparison
dc.subjectlung non small cell cancer
dc.subjectlung small cell cancer
dc.subjectlymphoma
dc.subjectmajor clinical study
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectneoplasm
dc.subjectPapanicolaou test
dc.subjectpriority journal
dc.subjectrandomization
dc.subjectsarcoidosis
dc.subjectsensitivity and specificity
dc.subjecttransbronchial aspiration
dc.subjecttuberculosis
dc.subjectWright Giemsa stain
dc.subjectAdenocarcinoma
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectAzure Stains
dc.subjectBiopsy, Needle
dc.subjectBronchoscopy
dc.subjectCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
dc.subjectCarcinoma, Squamous Cell
dc.subjectCytodiagnosis
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectLung Neoplasms
dc.subjectLymphoma
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectPredictive Value of Tests
dc.subjectReference Standards
dc.subjectReproducibility of Results
dc.subjectSarcoidosis, Pulmonary
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subjectStaining and Labeling
dc.subjectTuberculosis, Pulmonary
dc.titleRapid on-site evaluation of transbronchial aspirates: Randomised comparison of two methods
dc.typeArticle
Files
Collections
Stellenbosch University - Scopus Tygerberg Hospital Publications