Performance of the CellSolutions Glucyte Liquid-Based Cytology in Comparison with the ThinPrep and SurePath Methods

Abstract

Objective: Glucyte liquid-based cytology (LBC; BestPrep™;CellSolutions, LLC, Greensboro, N.C., USA) is a recently developed method. Its performance was assessed in comparison with ThinPrep (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, Mass., USA) and SurePath (BD Diagnostics, Burlington, N.C., USA) LBC platforms. Study Design: Two cervical samples obtained from each of 331 patients presenting for colposcopy were utilized. The first sample was placed in PreservCyt (Hologic) and the second in SurePath medium, and both were processed in accordance with the manufacturers’ protocols. From the residual SurePath sample, a Glucyte slide was prepared, stained, and read as per the manufacturer’s instructions. Results: Considering a threshold cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and using a histologic diagnosis of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN 2+) as the end point, there was no significant difference in the sensitivity of Glucyte for the detection of CIN 2+ compared with ThinPrep and SurePath (86.9 vs. 81.9% and 83.7%, respectively). However, Glucyte showed a specificity of 49.2% compared with 61.6% for ThinPrep (p = 0.002) and 66.9% for SurePath (p < 0.001). Considering a threshold cytologic diagnosis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, Glucyte showed a sensitivity of 40.5% for detecting CIN 2+ compared with 20.5% for ThinPrep (p = 0.003) and 54.7% for SurePath (p = 0.013). The corresponding specificities were 93.8, 99.1, and 94.3%. The rate of unsatisfactory specimens for Glucyte was 1.2% compared with ThinPrep (4.8%) and SurePath (0%). Conclusion: Glucyte appeared to perform reasonably well compared with ThinPrep and SurePath. It offers an alternative to these well recognized LBC systems.

Evaluation of CellSolutions BestPrep® Automated Thin-Layer Liquid-Based Cytology Papanicolaou Slide Preparation and BestCyte® Cell Sorter Imaging System

“…If one reviews the literature, as Nanda et al [6] reported in a previous publication, cytology often performs well in sensitivity and specificity in quality laboratories using typical ASC-US standards of interpretation with ASC-US as the positive cutoff. As an example of achievable cytology sensitivity and specificity, Bolick and Hellman [7 ]reported sensitivity for ThinPrep LSIL+ for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2-3 cases or higher of 94.2% and specificity of 57.7% [8]. Zhao et al [9] reported that verification bias-adjusted Pap screening sensitivity was 93% in the cytology laboratory of Magee-Womens Hospital.…”

Computational Cytology: Lessons Learned from Pap Test Computer-Assisted Screening

“…Additionally, the system allows for review of the entire digital slide by the cytotechnologist or pathologist [29]. CellSolutions also offers a proprietary liquidbased sample preservative solution and thin-layer slide preparation method called Glucyte, which has shown to perform reasonably well when compared to ThinPrep and SurePath slides [30,31]. Another digital system currently under development is Hologic's Digital Cytology system for computer-assisted diagnosis of Pap tests.…”

Overview of Nongynecological Samples Prepared with Liquid-Based Cytology Medium

“…A number of non-FDA-approved methods have been developed for use outside of the USA. These include LiquiPrep [4], Turbitec [5], PapSpin [6], TACAS [7,8], Siriraj-LBC [9], DNA-Citoliq (Digene) [10], GluCyte [11], and some other devices [12,13]. Specimen materials collected in the preservation medium are routinely used for cell blocks, which can provide additional diagnostic information, including architectural pattern, immunocytochemistry (ICC) and special stains.…”