Quantitative cytomorphological comparison of SurePath and ThinPrep liquid-based cytology using high-grade urothelial carcinoma cells

1. Charlton ME, Adamo MP, Sun L, Deorah S. Bladder cancer collaborative stage

variables and their data quality, usage, and clinical implications: a review of SEER

data, 2004-2010. Cancer. 2014;120 (0 23):3815-3825.

2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin.

2019;69(1):7-34.

3. Thiryayi SA, Rana DN. Urine cytopathology: challenges, pitfalls, and mimics. Diagn

Cytopathol. 2012;40(11):1019-1034.

4. Straccia P, Bizzarro T, Fadda G, Pierconti F. Comparison between cytospin and liquidbased cytology in urine specimens classified according to the Paris System for

Reporting Urinary Cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124(7):519-523.

5. Rosenthal DL, Worjcik EM, Kurtycz DFI. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary

Cytology. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 2015.

6. Barkan GA, Wojcik EM, Nayar R, et al. The Paris System for Reporting Urinary

Cytology: The quest to develop a standardized terminology. Acta Cytol.

2016;60(3):185-197.

7. VandenBussche CJ. A review of the Paris system for reporting urinary

cytology. Cytopathology. 2016;27(3):153-156.

15

8. Richardson CJ, Pambuccian SE, Barkan GA. Split-sample comparison of urothelial

cells in ThinPrep and cytospin preparations in urinary cytology: Do we need to adjust

The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology criteria? Cancer Cytopathol.

2020;128(2):119-125.

9. Michael CW, McConnel J, Pecott J, Afify AM, Al-Khafaji B. Comparison of ThinPrep

and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: a pilot

study. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001;25(3):177-184.

10. Park GS, Lee SH, Jung SL, Jung CK. Liquid-based cytology in the fine needle

aspiration of parathyroid lesions: a comparison study with the conventional smear,

ThinPrep, and SurePath. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8(10):12160-12168.

11. Toyonaga Y, Yamazaki K, Koyama Y, Yamada M, Ishida Y. A modified direct-smear

processing technique employing two-step centrifugation/fixation is useful for

detecting high-grade urothelial carcinoma. Acta Cytol. 2017;61(6):447-454.

12. Hang JF, Charu V, Zhang ML, VandenBussche CJ. Digital image analysis supports a

nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio cutoff value of 0.5 for atypical urothelial cells. Cancer

Cytopathol. 2017;125(9):710-716.

13. Ohsaki H, Sofue T, Kawakami K, et al. WT1 immunoenzyme staining using SurePath

(™) processed urine cytology helps to detect kidney disease. Cytopathology.

16

2016;27(1):43-49.

14. ThinPrep®

5000

Processor.

Operator’s

Manual.

Available

from

URL:

https://www.hologic.com/sites/default/files/package-insert/MAN-02203001_002_02.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2021.

15. Zhang ML, Guo AX, VandenBussche CJ. Morphologists overestimate the nuclear-tocytoplasmic ratio. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124(9):669-677.

16. Layfield LJ, Esebua M, Frazier SR, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of

nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio assessments in urinary cytology specimens. Diagn

Cytopathol. 2017;45(2):107-112.

Figure legends

Figure 1. Traced high-grade urothelial carcinoma cell nucleus on the ImageJ application

window (Papanicolaou stain, original magnification ×100). (a) SurePath slide. (b)

ThinPrep slide. Both images (a) and (b) are from the same patient.

Figure 2. (a) SurePath slide: the nuclear to cytoplasmic (N:C) ratio was 0.64; nuclear

mean gray value was 107.3; and nuclear roundness was 0.97. (b) ThinPrep slide: the N:C

ratio was 0.65; nuclear mean gray value was 141.4; and nuclear roundness was 0.96. Both

images (a) and (b) are from the same patient. (Papanicolaou stain, original magnification

17

×100)

Figure 3. (a) SurePath slide: the nuclear to cytoplasmic (N:C) ratio was 0.78; nuclear

mean gray value was 99.0; and nuclear roundness was 0.97 (b) ThinPrep slide: the N:C

ratio was 0.75; nuclear mean gray value was 126.7; and nuclear roundness was 0.96. Both

images (a) and (b) are from the same patient. (Papanicolaou stain, original magnification

×100)

Figure 4. (a) SurePath slide: the nuclear to cytoplasmic (N:C) ratio was 0.61; nuclear

mean gray value was 69.3; and nuclear roundness was 0.90 (b) ThinPrep slide: the N:C

ratio was 0.69; nuclear mean gray value was 85.8; and nuclear roundness was 0.98. Both

images (a) and (b) are from the same patient. (Papanicolaou stain, original magnification

×100)

Author contributions

Methodology: Ohsaki H. Formal analysis: Okuda C., Nakamura A. and Ohsaki H.

Software: Okuda C. and Nakamura A. Visualization: Okuda C. and Ohsaki H.

Resources: Kyoutake A., Itoh T., and Ohsaki H. Writing-original draft: Okuda C. and

Ohsaki H. Writing-review and editing: Kamoshida S. and Ohsaki H. Supervision:

18

Ohsaki H

Data availability statement

Data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author

upon reasonable request.

19

TABLE 1. Comparative of the quantitative cytomorphologic features of HGUC cells between SurePath and ThinPrep

Mean (Range)

SurePath

ThinPrep

p value

Nuclear area (μm2)

168.0 (54.7–925.6)

185.2 (37.0–823.3)

<0.001

Cytoplasmic area (μm2)

314.1 (97.5–1651.4)

347.5 (81.2–1151.2)

<0.001

N:C ratio

0.54 (0.32–0.88)

0.54 (0.31–0.81)

0.373

N:C ratio†

0.72 (0.54–0.88)

0.71 (0.55–0.81)

0.265

93.9 (40.2–169.4)

110.8 (49.9–185.3)

<0.001

97.6 (48.8–169.4)

119.2 (72.3–165.5)

<0.001

Nuclear mean gray value

(Hyperchromasia)

Nuclear mean gray value†

(Hyperchromasia)

19

Nuclear roundness

0.90 (0.62–0.96)

0.90 (0.56–0.96)

(Irregular nuclear borders)

: Five HGUC cells with the largest N:C ratios

HGUC: high-grade urothelial carcinoma

20

0.024

Cytopathology

ev

rR

ee

rP

Fo

Fig 1. (a) SurePath slide

iew

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

83x74mm (350 x 350 DPI)

Cytopathology

ev

rR

ee

rP

Fo

Fig 1. (b) ThinPrep slide

iew

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

83x73mm (350 x 350 DPI)

Cytopathology

ev

rR

ee

rP

Fo

Fig 2 (a)

244x203mm (300 x 300 DPI)

iew

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Cytopathology

ev

rR

ee

rP

Fo

Fig 2 (b)

242x202mm (300 x 300 DPI)

iew

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Cytopathology

ev

rR

ee

rP

Fo

Fig 3 (a)

243x203mm (300 x 300 DPI)

iew

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Cytopathology

ev

rR

ee

rP

Fo

Fig 3 (b)

243x203mm (300 x 300 DPI)

iew

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Cytopathology

ev

rR

ee

rP

Fo

Fig 4 (a)

243x203mm (300 x 300 DPI)

iew

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Cytopathology

ev

rR

ee

rP

Fo

Fig 4 (b)

243x203mm (300 x 300 DPI)

iew

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

...