Comparison of EASYPREP(®) and SurePath(®) in thyroid fine-needle aspiration.

BACKGROUND: While fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) using conventional smear has been widely accepted as the primary diagnostic tool for thyroid lesions, liquid-based preparations (LBPs) are increasingly replacing it. A new automated LBP method, EASYPREP(®) (EP), was recently introduced and has shown relevant diagnostic efficacy in gynecologic samples. We compared the diagnostic utility of EP and SurePath(®) (SP), a more widely established LBP method, in thyroid FNAC. METHODS: Under the ultrasonographic guidance, 253 thyroid FNAC samples were collected by sample-splitting manner. Three pathologists made cytologic diagnoses of EP and SP according to the Bethesda system independently and compared the cytomorphologic parameters. Cytohistologic correlation was performed in 30 resected cases. RESULTS: Fifteen (5.9%) and 21 (8.3%) samples were unsatisfactory in SP and EP, respectively, owing to the unequal sample-splitting. Cytologic diagnoses of SP and EP were consistent in 228 cases (90.1%), and inconsistent in remainder mostly owing to the unequal distribution of pathognomic cells. While cytomorphologic parameters were not significantly different between two methods, EP showed less three-dimensional configuration in benign lesions. Cytohistologic correlation showed no significant differences in sensitivity (100% vs. 95.5%) and specificity (100% vs. 100%) between SP and EP. Labor time for processing 48 cases was 42% shorter with EP than with SP (28 min vs. 48 min). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic utility of EP in thyroid FNAC was comparable to that of SP. EP allowed better visibility owing to better fragmentation of follicular clusters. The automated system of EP has the advantages of a shorter labor time for batch processing. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2016;44:283-290. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cytological Evaluation and REBA HPV-ID HPV Testing of Newly Developed Liquid-Based Cytology, EASYPREP: Comparison with SurePath.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate a newly-developed EASYPREP liquid-based cytology method in cervicovaginal specimens and compare it with SurePath. METHODS: Cervicovaginal specimens were prospectively collected from 1,000 patients with EASYPREP and SurePath. The specimens were first collected by brushing for SurePath and second for EASYPREP. The specimens of both methods were diagnosed according to the Bethesda System. Additionally, we performed to REBA HPV-ID genotyping and sequencing analysis for human papillomavirus (HPV) on 249 specimens. RESULTS: EASYPREP and SurePath showed even distribution of cells and were equal in cellularity and staining quality. The diagnostic agreement between the two methods was 96.5%. Based on the standard of SurePath, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of EASYPREP were 90.7%, 99.2%, 94.8%, and 98.5%, respectively. The positivity of REBA HPV-ID was 49.4% and 95.1% in normal and abnormal cytological samples, respectively. The result of REBA HPV-ID had high concordance with sequencing analysis. CONCLUSIONS: EASYPREP provided comparable results to SurePath in the diagnosis and staining quality of cytology examinations and in HPV testing with REBA HPV-ID. EASYPREP could be another LBC method choice for the cervicovaginal specimens. Additionally, REBA HPV-ID may be a useful method for HPV genotyping.