See the published version of this preprint at Diagnostic Pathology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research
Shintaro Sukegawa
Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7986-2735
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
This study was conducted to compare the histological diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral-based cytology and liquid-based cytology (LBC) methods.
Methods
Histological diagnoses of 251 cases were classified as negative (no malignancy lesion, inflammation, or mild/moderate dysplasia) and positive [severe dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)]. Cytological diagnoses were classified as negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM), oral low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (OLSIL), oral high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (OHSIL), or SCC. Cytological diagnostic results were compared with histology results.
Results
Of NILM cytology cases, the most frequent case was negative [LBC n = 50 (90.9%), conventional n = 22 (95.7%)]. Among OLSIL cytodiagnoses, the most common was negative (LBC n = 34; 75.6%, conventional n = 14; 70.0%). Among OHSIL cytodiagnoses (LBC n = 51, conventional n = 23), SCC was the most frequent (LBC n = 31; 60.8%, conventional n = 7; 30.4%). Negative cases were common (LBC n = 13; 25.5%, conventional n = 14; 60.9%). Among SCC cytodiagnoses SCC was the most common (LBC n = 16; 88.9%, conventional n = 14; 87.5%). Regarding the diagnostic results of cytology, assuming OHSIL and SCC as cytologically positive, the LBC method/conventional method showed a sensitivity of 79.4%/76.7%, specificity of 85.1%/69.2%, false-positive rate of 14.9%/30.7%, and false-negative rate of 20.6%/23.3%.
Conclusions
LBC method was superior to conventional cytodiagnosis methods. It was especially superior for OLSIL and OHSIL. Because of the false-positive and false-negative cytodiagnoses, it is necessary to make a comprehensive diagnosis considering the clinical findings.
Keywords
Cytology, Pathology, Liquid-based cytology, Screening, Inflammation
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- Table1.xlsx
Table 1. Histopathological categories. “Others” includes no malignancy, epulis, and mucosel.
- Table2.xlsx
Table 2. Results of cytological diagnoses in comparison with histopathological diagnoses
- Table3.xlsx
Table 3. Diagnostic accuracy of LBC and conventional methods
- Table4.xlsx
Table 4. Diagnostic performance metrics of cytological diagnoses
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Diagnostic Pathology.
Version 2
Posted 26 Aug, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 02 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 24 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 23 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 10 Aug, 2020
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 10 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 05 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 25 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 24 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 15 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Pathology
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at Diagnostic Pathology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research
Shintaro Sukegawa
Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7986-2735
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at Diagnostic Pathology.
Version 2
Posted 26 Aug, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 02 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 24 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 23 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Review #2 received
Received 10 Aug, 2020
Editorial decision: Major Revision
On 10 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 05 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 20 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 25 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 24 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 15 Jun, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Pathology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at Diagnostic Pathology.
Background
This study was conducted to compare the histological diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral-based cytology and liquid-based cytology (LBC) methods.
Methods
Histological diagnoses of 251 cases were classified as negative (no malignancy lesion, inflammation, or mild/moderate dysplasia) and positive [severe dysplasia/carcinoma in situ (CIS) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)]. Cytological diagnoses were classified as negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM), oral low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (OLSIL), oral high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (OHSIL), or SCC. Cytological diagnostic results were compared with histology results.
Results
Of NILM cytology cases, the most frequent case was negative [LBC n = 50 (90.9%), conventional n = 22 (95.7%)]. Among OLSIL cytodiagnoses, the most common was negative (LBC n = 34; 75.6%, conventional n = 14; 70.0%). Among OHSIL cytodiagnoses (LBC n = 51, conventional n = 23), SCC was the most frequent (LBC n = 31; 60.8%, conventional n = 7; 30.4%). Negative cases were common (LBC n = 13; 25.5%, conventional n = 14; 60.9%). Among SCC cytodiagnoses SCC was the most common (LBC n = 16; 88.9%, conventional n = 14; 87.5%). Regarding the diagnostic results of cytology, assuming OHSIL and SCC as cytologically positive, the LBC method/conventional method showed a sensitivity of 79.4%/76.7%, specificity of 85.1%/69.2%, false-positive rate of 14.9%/30.7%, and false-negative rate of 20.6%/23.3%.
Conclusions
LBC method was superior to conventional cytodiagnosis methods. It was especially superior for OLSIL and OHSIL. Because of the false-positive and false-negative cytodiagnoses, it is necessary to make a comprehensive diagnosis considering the clinical findings.
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- Table1.xlsx
Table 1. Histopathological categories. “Others” includes no malignancy, epulis, and mucosel.
- Table2.xlsx
Table 2. Results of cytological diagnoses in comparison with histopathological diagnoses
- Table3.xlsx
Table 3. Diagnostic accuracy of LBC and conventional methods
- Table4.xlsx
Table 4. Diagnostic performance metrics of cytological diagnoses
Loading...