{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044444444444444446, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017361111111111112, 'mean_word_length': 5.765258215962441, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Non‐gynecologic cytology on liquid‐based preparations: A morphologic review of facts and artifacts

Liquid‐based preparations (LBP) are increasingly being used both for gynecologic (gyn) and non‐gynecologic (non‐gyn) cytology including fine needle aspirations (FNA). The two FDA‐approved LBP currently in use include ThinPrep (TP), (Cytyc Corp, Marlborough, MA) and SurePath (SP), (TriPath Imaging Inc., Burlington, NC). TP was approved for cervico‐vaginal (Pap test) cytology in 1996 and SP in 1999 and both have since also been used for non‐gyn cytology. In the LBP, instead of being smeared, cells are rinsed into a liquid preservative collection medium and processed on automated devices. Even after a decade of use, the morphological interpretation of LBP remains a diagnostic challenge because of somewhat altered morphology and artifacts or facts resulting from the fixation and processing techniques. These changes include cleaner background with altered or reduced background and extracellular elements; architectural changes such as smaller cell clusters and sheets, breakage of papillae; altered cell distribution with more dyscohesion and changes in cellular morphology with enhanced nuclear features, smaller cell size and slightly more three‐dimensional (3‐D) clusters. Herein, we review the published literature on morphological aspects of LBP for non‐gyn cytology. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2007;35:621–634. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.