IP Archives of Cytology and Histopathology Research

Print ISSN: 2581-5725

Online ISSN: 2456-9267

CODEN : IACHCL

IP Archives of Cytology and Histopathology Research (ACHR) open access, peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing since 2016 and is published under the Khyati Education and Research Foundation (KERF), is registered as a non-profit society (under the society registration act, 1860), Government of India with the vision of various accredited vocational courses in healthcare, education, paramedical, yoga, publication, teaching and research activity, with the aim of faster and better dissemination of knowledge, we will be publishing the article more...

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article statistics

Viewed: 224

PDF Downloaded: 134


Get Permission Rhutso, Ahmed, and Pathak: The diagnostic utility of cell block as an adjunct to routine cytology


Introduction

The cell block (CB) technique has been in use for more than a century. The first report of this technique was made by Bahrenburg in 1896.1 Following this report, various Cell Block techniques have been developed over the years that vary in scope and the type of fixatives, processing, and embedding techniques used. Conventional smear preparation from centrifuged serous fluid and from FNAC of superficial or deep lesion is an increasingly common procedure in diagnosis of neoplastic as well as non-neoplastic lesions. Sometimes conventional smear does not yield sufficient information for precise diagnosis and the risk of false negative or intermediate diagnoses always exists. In order to overcome these problems, cell block technique has been resorted to make the best use of the available material.

Cell Block is known to increase cellular yield and improve diagnostic accuracy. It allows the identification of architectural patterns similar to those observed in histological sections, which, associated with morphological cellular details present in the other cytological preparations, enable a definitive diagnosis, with neoplasm classification similar or identical to histological classification. Besides, it also allows additional studies, such as histochemical staining and immunohistochemical analysis as well as molecular tests. 2

Despite the above diagnostic utility of cell block in FNAC and fluid cytology, the technique remains to be underutilized. Hence, this study will be undertaken to determine the utility of cell block method as an adjunct to conventional smear preparation in the diagnosis of various lesions in our setup. Also, the possibility of using ancillary techniques such as immunohistochemistry on cell blocks and the use of cell block as a routine diagnostic tool will be studied.

Materials and Methods

A hospital based prospective study of 195 consecutive cases of all cytological specimens (FNAC and body fluids) fulfilling the inclusion criteria was included in the study. Cell block was prepared using AAF fixative comprising of 95% ethyl alcohol 34 ml, Glacial acetic acid 2 ml and formalin 4 ml.

Inclusion criteria

  1. All cases of Peritoneal and pleural fluid.

  2. All cases of palpable lymph node, breast and other superficial palpable masses suspected or diagnosed as malignancy.

Exclusion criteria

  1. Swellings other than lymph node, breast and other superficial palpable masses suspected or diagnosed as malignancy.

  2. All cases of thyroid and salivary gland swelling.

  3. All other fluids except pleural and peritoneal.

  4. Inadequate smears (acellular or bloody samples with poorly preserved cells).

FNAC is performed using 23 gauge needle attached to the 10 ml disposable syringe under aseptic condition. For routine cytological examination, FNA conventional smears are made, air dried for Giemsa stain or immediately alcohol fixed in 95% ethyl alcohol for Papanicolaou stain wherever needed. For cell block analysis, the material in the aspirating syringe is pushed in the test tube containing 5 ml isotonic saline and centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 10 minutes. The supernatant is poured off and cell sediment is mixed with thrice the volume of AAF fixative, and the mixture fluid is centrifuged for 10 minutes at 2000 rpm. Again, the supernatant is poured off and the cell button is re-suspended in AAF fixative and centrifuged for 10 minutes at 3000 rpm. The centrifuged tube is set aside and left undisturbed overnight.

For cytological smear of body fluids, specimens are centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 10 min and four conventional smears are made from the sediment in each case. Half of the smears are air dried for Giemsa staining, and the remaining are fixed by 95% ethanol for Pap staining. For cell block preparation, fluids are centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant is poured off and cell sediment is mixed with thrice the volume of AAF fixative, and is centrifuged for 10 minutes at 2000 rpm. Again, the supernatant is poured off and the cell button is re-suspended in AAF fixative and centrifuged for 10 minutes at 3000 rpm. The centrifuged tube is set aside and left undisturbed overnight.

The cell button from both the body fluids and FNAC is then put in a filter paper, wrapped and is processed as routine biopsy specimen. The cell blocks are then embedded in paraffin and sectioned at 4 µm thickness and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. Immunohistochemical staining is done wherever applicable.

Interpretation of conventional smears and cell block

Every conventional smear and cell block slide were analyzed for cellularity, background, cytoplasmic and nuclear details, tissue architecture. On the basis of following criteria, the conventional smear and cell block slides were diagnosed:

  1. Negative for malignancy.

  2. Suspicious for malignancy.

  3. Positive for malignancy.

Statistical analysis

Frequency tables of demographic and clinicopathologic parameters were established. A comparison will be done between cytological smear, cell block and histology wherever possible. Kappa value for statistical correlation between Conventional smear and cell block preparation was calculated.

Results

As represented in Figure 1, both Males and Female were predominantly from the age group of 51-60 years with 30.3% and 27.1% respectively. Out of the 195 samples, 96 (49.2%) samples were male and 99 (50.8%) samples female.

As represented in Figure 2, the samples were divided into peritoneal fluids, pleural fluid, lymph node and other FNAC sites. Among 195 samples, 79 (40.5%) were peritoneal fluid, 14 (7.2%) were pleural fluid, 85 (43.5%) were lymph node and other FNA sites were 17 (8.7%). Out of which were 4 (2%) from breast, 4 (2%) from scalp, 5 (2.7%) from skin (2 from cheek and 3 abdominal wall), 3 (1.5%) from soft tissue (1 each from arm, foot and sternum) and 1 (0.5%) from cystic swelling in mandible bone.

The diagnosis on conventional smear (Table 1 ) showed 71 (36.5%) cases were negative for malignancy. 6 (3%) cases were suspicious for malignancy and 118 (60.5%) cases were positive for malignancy.

The diagnosis of the cell block (Table 2) showed 68 (35%) cases were negative for malignancy, 4 (2%) cases were suspicious for malignancy and 123 (63%) cases were positive for malignancy.

By conventional smear, the diagnosis of Negative for malignancy was made in 71 cases (36.5%), positive for malignancy was made in 118 cases (60.5%) and suspicious of malignancy was made in 6 cases (3%). In cell block, Negative for malignancy was made in 68 cases (35%) and positive for malignancy was made in 123 cases (63%) and suspicious for malignancy was 4 (2%). (Table 3)

Of the 79 cases of peritoneal effusion the most common primary site was ovary in 35 cases and stomach in 18 cases. Of the 14 cases of pleural effusion the most common primary site was lung and breast with 4 cases each and followed by ovary and oesophagus with 2 cases each. Of the 85 cases of lymph node FNAC the primary site was unknown in 17 cases while 13 cases of primary in larynx, 11 cases in oesophagus and 10 cases in oral cavity. Among the 17 cases of FNA from other sites, the most common primary was breast with 6 cases followed by oral cavity and lung with 2 cases each. (Table 4)

In peritoneal effusion maximum positive for malignancy cases were from ovarian primary followed by GIT on both CS and CB. Of the 7 cases of pleural effusion positive for malignancy the most common primary site was lung with 4 cases followed by breast and ovary with 2 cases each on both CS and CB. In lymph node FNAC positive for malignancy in both CS and CB were maximum in cases with unknown primary with 14 cases each followed by larynx and oesophagus, while in other FNAC sites it was oral cavity and lung with 2 cases each followed by breast. (Table 4)

Eleven cases of peritoneal effusion were subjected to immunohistochemistry on CB preparation. Out of which, 2 cases of endometrial carcinoma and one case of breast carcinoma were stained for ER and PR for confirmation while one case of colon cancer was stained for CD 20 and CDX-2 and five cases of ovarian cancer were stained for CK, WNT and calretinin for confirmation as positive for malignancy.

Two cases of CB preparations of pleural effusion were also subjected to ER, PR and Her2neu IHC which confirmed the cases as positive for metastasis from primary breast which also correlated with the IHC status of primary breast cancer.

Four cases of MUO on lymph node CB were subjected to p16 immunostaining to rule out associated EBV infection. The four cases of suspicious for malignancy on cell block could not be subjected to IHC for confirmation due to insufficient material for IHC.

Peritoneal effusion showed 8 additional cases as positive for malignancy in CB preparation which were negative or suspicious for malignancy on CS. Out of these 8 cases, the primary sites were from ovary (5 cases), breast (1 case), colon (1 case) and peritoneum (1 case). Of these, 3 cases were suspicious of malignancy on conventional smear with 1 case each with ovary, colon and peritoneum.

There were 3 cases of peritoneal effusion diagnosed as positive for malignancy on CS but on CB, 1 case each with breast and ovarian primary was found to be negative while 1 case was suspicious for malignancy with ovarian primary. (Table 5)

There was no discrepancy between CS and CB among the 7 cases of pleural effusion which were positive for malignancy.

In FNAC, two additional positive case was found in CB preparation of lymph node FNAC, with 1 case each with larynx and breast as primary. One case positive for malignancy on CS of lymph node FNAC, was suspicious for malignancy on CB, with oral cavity as primary. One case of breast FNA was found to be negative on CB which was positive for malignancy on CS. (Table 5).

By using the above data, we calculated a Kappa value of 89.5 % for statistical correlation between Conventional smear and cell block preparation.

Figure 1

Age and gender distribution in the sample

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/fbf1e8cc-ee85-4b5a-999b-24a74abb5a1eimage1.png
Figure 2

Chart of different samples sites received

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/fbf1e8cc-ee85-4b5a-999b-24a74abb5a1eimage2.png
Figure 3

CB Peritoneal fluid IHC: Cytokeratin (40x).

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/fbf1e8cc-ee85-4b5a-999b-24a74abb5a1eimage3.png
Figure 4

CB Peritoneal fluid IHC: Calretinin (40x)

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/fbf1e8cc-ee85-4b5a-999b-24a74abb5a1eimage4.png
Figure 5

CB Pleural fluid H&E (40x)

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/fbf1e8cc-ee85-4b5a-999b-24a74abb5a1eimage5.png
Figure 6

CB Pleural fluid IHC: ER positive (40x)

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/fbf1e8cc-ee85-4b5a-999b-24a74abb5a1eimage6.png
Figure 7

CB Pleural fluid IHC: PR positive (40x)

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/fbf1e8cc-ee85-4b5a-999b-24a74abb5a1eimage7.png
Table 1

Samples and diagnosis on Conventional smear

Sample

Negative for malignancy

Suspicious for malignancy

Positive for malignancy

Peritoneal fluid

46

5

28

Pleural fluid

7

0

7

Lymph node

12

1

72

Others

6

0

11

Total

71 (36.5%)

6 (3%)

118 (60.5%)

The diagnosis on conventional smear (Table 1) showed 71 (36.5%) cases were negative for malignancy. 6 (3%) cases were suspicious for malignancy and 118 (60.5%) cases were positive for malignancy.

Table 2

Samples and Diagnosis on Cell block

Sample

Negative for malignancy

Suspicious for malignancy

Positive for malignancy

Peritoneal fluid

44

2

33

Pleural fluid

7

0

7

Lymph node

10

2

73

Others

7

0

10

Total

68 (35%)

4 (2%)

123 (63%)

Table 3

Comparison of Diagnosis of samples

Diagnosis

Conventional smear

Cell block

Negative for malignancy

71

36.5%

68

35%

Suspicious for malignancy

6

3%

4

2%

Positive for malignancy

118

60.5%

123

63%

Table 4

Primary sites of positive for malignancy cases

Peritoneal fluid

Pleural fluid

Primary

No. of cases

No of positive cases

Primary

No. of cases

No of positive cases

CS

CB

CS

CB

Ovary

35

15+2

15+5

Lungs

4

3

3

Stomach

18

2+1

2

Breast

4

2

2

Breast

2

0

1

Oesophagus

2

0

0

Gall Bladder

6

2

2

Stomach

1

0

0

Colon

3

1

1+1

Ovary

2

2

2

Rectum

5

1

1

Lymphoma

1

0

0

Endometrium

5

3

3

Total

14

7

7

Liver

2

1

1

Pancreas

2

0

0

Peritoneum

1

0

1

Total

79

28

33

Lymph node

FNA Others

Primary

No of cases

No of positive cases

Primary

No of cases

No of positive cases

CS

CB

CS

CB

MUO

17

14

14

Breast

6

1+1

1

Larynx

13

12

12+1

Oral cavity

2

2

2

Oesophagus

11

11

11

Lung

2

2

2

Oral cavity

10

9+1

9

Arm ES

1

1

1

Oropharynx

9

8

8

Bone (mandible)

1

0

0

Orbit

2

1

1

Thyroid

1

1

1

Pharynx

1

1

1

Larynx

1

1

1

Gall bladder

1

1

1

GB

1

1

1

Nasopharynx

1

1

1

Lymphoma

1

0

0

Pancreas

1

1

1

Skin (abd wall)

1

1

1

Stomach

2

2

2

Total

17

11

10

Colon

2

1

1

Rectum

2

2

2

Ovary

2

2

2

Breast

1

0

1

Thyroid

2

1

1

Bladder

1

1

1

Skin

3

2

2

Lymphoma

3

0

0

Testis

1

1

1

Total

85

72

73

Table 5

Discordant results between conventional smear and cell block.

Sample

Smear positive with negative cell block for malignancy

Cell block positive with negative smear for malignancy

Effusion

3

8

FNAC

2

2

Total

5

10

Discussion

In the present study, most cases were in the age group of 51-60 years (29%) followed by 41-50 years (24%) and 61-70 years (18%). Both effusion and FNAC cases showed higher incidence in the same age groups. These findings were similar to study done by Bansode et al3 and Padmavathi et al4 who have reported higher number of cases in the age group 41–60 years as 54% and 69.3%, respectively. This was in contrasts with findings by Matreja et al 5 with most cases 26.1% in the age group 21–30 years. No patients in the age group of 11–20 years was found. Mean age of patients was 50.68 years.

No significant difference was found in gender-wise distribution of cases with Male: Female ratio of 1: 0.98. Similar findings on effusions study were observed by Matreja et al, Dey S et al and Khan et al. 5, 6, 7

Greater frequency of effusion in females (34.3% vs 13.2%) and conversely greater number of fine needle aspirates from males (36% vs 16%) was recorded.

Majority of the sample received was from lymph node (43.7%) followed by peritoneal fluid (40.4%), superficial sites (8.8%) and then pleural fluid (7.1%).

Overall, it was found that the greater numbers of positive for malignancy both on CS (60.5%) and CB (63%) which may be attributable to the fact that our pathology department is based in a tertiary cancer hospital and majority of our patients are suspected or confirmed cases of malignancy.

In the present study, it was found that cases positive for malignancy was greater on FNAC with relatively fewer effusions positive for malignancy. In other words, majority of the effusion were negative for malignancy which is comparable to other studies by Bansode et al. 3 and Padmavathi et al. 4 and Thapar M et al. 8

On CS, out of the total 195 cases, positive for malignancy was 17.9% on effusion and 42.6% on FNAC, negative for malignancy was 27.2% on effusion and 9.3% on FNAC while suspicious for malignancy was 2.5% on effusion and 0.5% on FNAC. Similarly, on CB, out of the total 195 cases, positive for malignancy was 20.5% on effusion and 42.5% on FNAC, negative for malignancy was 26.2% on effusion and 8.8% on FNAC while suspicious for malignancy was 1 % both on effusion and FNAC. The greater number of positive cases in FNAC could be attributable to the larger sample size and early presentation of lymph node metastases while malignant effusions are more commonly present at advanced stage of disease.

Similar to our study, Matreja et al 5 and Nair et al 9 have reported most common primary neoplasm in cases of malignant peritoneal effusions were carcinoma of the ovary followed by adenocarcinoma of gastrointestinal tract (GIT), whereas the most common primary malignancy causing pleural effusion was carcinoma of the lung, followed by carcinoma of the breast. Sears et al 10 have reported most common primary neoplasm causing peritoneal effusions were carcinoma of the ovary (32%), carcinoma of the breast (15%), and lymphoreticular malignancies (7%), whereas common primary malignancies in cases of pleural effusions were carcinoma of the breast (24%), followed by carcinoma of the lung (19%), and malignancies of lymphoreticular system (16%) in their study. Shivakumarswamy et al 11 have reported that common primary lesions in their study on pleural effusion were lung and then in GIT.

Amongst the Fine needle aspirates maximum cases were from lymph nodes (43.5%) followed by 4 (2%) from breast, 4 (2%) from scalp, 5 (2.7%) from skin (2 from cheek and 3 abdominal wall), 3 (1.5%) from soft tissue (1 each from arm, foot and sternum) and 1 (0.5%) from mandible bone. Sharma R et al 12 also reported a greater frequency of FNA from lymph node followed by breast. Out of the 85 cases of lymph node FNAC, majority of the positive FNAC cases were performed on cervical neck nodes and metastatic squamous cell carcinoma comprised majority of the diagnosis. In FNAC of lymph node, 17 cases had unknown primary site, out of which 14 cases were positive for malignancy. In FNAC of lymph node with known primary site, majority cases were from larynx, followed by oesophagus, oral cavity and oropharynx.

Eleven cases of peritoneal effusion CB preparation were subjected to immunohistochemistry using cytokeratin, calretinin, WT-1, TTF-1, CD20, CDX2, Oestrogen and Progesterone receptor to confirm the adenocarcinoma cells. Two cases of endometrial carcinoma and one case of breast carcinoma were positive for ER and PR while one case of colon cancer was positive for CD20 and CDX-2 and five cases of serous ovarian cancer were positive for WT-1.

Two cases of CB preparations of pleural effusion were subjected to ER, PR and Her2neu IHC which confirmed the cases as positive for metastasis from primary breast cancer, which also correlated with the IHC status of primary breast cancer. Knowledge on the hormonal and Her2neu status in breast cancer was valuable in prognostication and predicting patient’s response to therapy. Briffod M et al13 observed an excellent correlation between cell-block results for primary tumors and node metastases and also concluded that cell blocks prepared from FNA specimens of breast carcinomas and their node metastases were useful when planning neoadjuvant treatment.

A basic panel of immunohistochemical markers (CK, CD45, synaptophysin, chromogranin, Vimentin and S-100) was applied on 7 cell blocks of FNAC from lymph node where primary was unknown. Four cases of MUO on lymph node CB were subjected to p16 immunostaining to rule out associated EBV infection.

By the combined use of smears and cell blocks, positivity for malignancy increased by 15 cases. In the present study, 8 additional cases positive for malignancy on CB preparation of peritoneal effusion were found, out of which 5 cases of ovarian malignancy and one case each of breast, colon and peritoneal carcinomatosis was reported. Of these, 3 cases of ovarian malignancy were suspicious on conventional smear while the rest were negative for malignancy on CS. Conventional smear showed 3 cases positive for malignancy, which include one positive case of breast primary and one positive case of ovarian primary which were negative on cell block and 1 case on CB as suspicious for malignancy with ovarian primary. There was no discordance in the findings of 7 cases of pleural fluid on cell block and conventional smear preparation.

Bhansode et al 3 and Bodele et al 14 in their study on effusion also identified additional 9 cases and 10 cases of malignant lesions respectively by cell block method when compared to conventional smear. A study by Dey S et al 6 concluded that CB techniques definitively increased detection of malignancy in body cavity effusion when used as an adjunct to conventional smears.

In FNAC of lymph node, two additional positive for malignancy case was found in CB preparation with primary from larynx and breast which were negative on CS. Lymph node FNA of one case positive for malignancy on CS showed to be suspicious for malignancy on CB, which had oral cavity as primary. One case of breast FNA positive for malignancy on CS was found to be negative on CB. This could be attributable to lower cellular yield and technical issues. We did not find any significant difference between CS and CB among FNA cases positive for malignancy. However, cases with cystic lesions provided better yield in cell block preparations as compared to solid and fibrous lesion on FNA.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

In our experience, we found architectural features and morphology were better appreciated on CB and application of immunohistochemistry was possible on Cell block preparations which provided additional advantage over conventional smear preparations. We also found that effusions and metastatic or primary cystic lesions on FNAC yielded better material for cell block in comparison to conventional smear preparations, whereas no significant advantage was observed in the cell block and conventional smear preparation of FNAC on solid superficial lesions.22, 23, 24

Conclusion

In the present study, the use of Cell block technique increases the detection of malignancy when used as an adjunct to conventional smears, especially when applied in effusion and cystic nodal and superficial lesions. It was observed that morphological and architectural features are better identified in Cell Block technique thus improving sensitivity. The application of IHC in CB in doubtful cases, help in confirming the diagnosis of primary site of the malignancy, thus improving specificity. The role of IHC as a prognostic and predictive marker can also be exploited in cell block preparations in confirmed cases of malignancy. Cell block technique is simple, inexpensive and reliable adjuvant to smears and it is recommended for routine cytologic diagnosis and for application of immunomarkers.

Data and Material Availability

Department of Oncopathology, Dr. B. Borooah Cancer Institute, Guwahati-781016, Assam, India

Authors’ Contributions

All the authors including corresponding author have contributed equally towards data collection, data analysis, preparation of the draft and approval of the final manuscript of this article. All the authors to confirm that they have met the ICMJE's requirements for authorship.

Source of Funding

None to disclose.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing or conflicts of interest

References

1 

LPH Bahrenburg On the diagnostic results of the microscopical examination of the ascitic fluid in two cases of carcinoma involving the peritoneumCleveland Med Gaz1896112748

2 

D Jain S R Mathur VK Iyer Cell blocks in cytopathology: a review of preparative methods, utility in diagnosis and role in ancillary studiesCytopathology201425635671

3 

S Bansode D Kumbalkar S Nayak Evaluation of Cell Block Technique in the Cytodiagnosis of Body FluidsInt J Sci Res2015478794

4 

A Padmavathi BV Prasad B Anuradha A comparative study of fluid cytology with smear and cell block preparationJ Evid Based Med Healthc201636535325

5 

SS Matreja K Malukani SS Nandedkar AV Varma A Saxena A Ajmera Comparison of efficacy of cell block versus conventional smear study in exudative fluidsNiger Postgrad Med J20172442459

6 

S Dey D Nag A Nandi R Bandyopadhyay Utility of cell block to detect malignancy in fluid cytology: Adjunct or necessity?J Cancer Res Ther20171334259

7 

N Khan RK Sherwani N Afroz S Kapoor Cytodiagnosis of malignant effusion and determination of primary siteJ Cytol2005221071010.4103/0970-9371.238647

8 

M Thapar R K Mishra A Sharma V Goyal V Goyal Critical analysis of cell block versus smear examination in effusionsJ Cytol2009262604

9 

GG Nair AA Manjula Comparative study of cell blocks & routine smears of pleural & peritoneal fluids in suspected cases of malignancyIndian J Pathol Oncol201522618

10 

D Sears S I Hajdu The cytologic diagnosis of malignant neoplasms in pleural and peritoneal effusionsActa Cytol19873128597

11 

U Shivakumarswamy SU Arakeri MH Karigowdar BR Yelikar Diagnostic utility of the cell block method versus the conventional smear study in pleural fluid cytologyJ Cytol2012291115

12 

R Sharma N Nagaich S Gupta Role of cell block in diagnostics-a new paradigm in cancer diagnosisInt Clin Pathol J2015151138

13 

M Briffod K Hacène VL Doussal Immunohistochemistry on Cell Blocks from Fine Needle Cytopunctures of Primary Breast Carcinomas and Lymph Node MetastasesMod Pathol200013884150

14 

AK Bodele SN Parate AA Wadadekar SK Bobhate MM Munshi Diagnostic utility of cell block preparation in reporting of fluid cytologyJ of Cytology20032031335

15 

SD Rollins DK Russell Cytopathology in Focus: Cell Blocks: Getting the most from the least invasive methodCAP Today201717

16 

A Saqi The State of Cell Blocks and Ancillary Testing: Past, Present, and FutureArch Pathol Lab Med201614012131822

17 

S Basnet O P Talwar Role of cell block preparation in neoplastic lesionsJ Pathol Nepal2012242726

18 

S Zhang X Yu Y Zheng Y Yang J Xie X Zhou Value of fine needle aspiration cell blocks in the diagnosis and classification of lymphomaInt J Clin Exp Pathol2014711771725

19 

P Singh A Gupta N P Awasthi A Singhal G Gupta Efficacy of cell block immunocytochemistry in the diagnostic workup of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma- experience from a tertiary care hospital in North IndiaIndian J of Pathol Oncol20185221620

20 

A K Barsagade P Umap A Deshpande P Male A Dhadas A Jungare Diagnostic Utility of Cell Block Preparation of Fine Needle Aspiration MaterialSch J App Med Sci2017512D50317

21 

MJ Patel SC Patel Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology and Cell Block Study of Various Breast LumpsJ Cytol Histol2018941510.4172/2157-7099.1000514

22 

S Bhowmik I Chakrabarti P Ghosh P Bera T Banik Comparative Evaluation of Cell Block Method and Smear Cytology in Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology of Intra-abdominal Mass LesionsIran J Pathol201813217987

23 

Cats Mitteldorf R S Vilela A C Barros R A Coudry Cell block specimens applied to diagnostic routine of thyroid fine-needle aspiration biopsyJ Bras Patol Med Lab2018541405

24 

VM Bhanvadia PM Santwani JH Vachhani Analysis of diagnostic value of cytological smear method versus cell block method in body fluid cytology: study of 150 casesEthiop J Health Sci201424212531



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Article type

Original Article


Article page

30-37


Authors Details

Yopovinu Rhutso, Shiraj Ahmed, Tarali Pathak*


Article History

Received : 28-12-2023

Accepted : 02-04-2024


Article Metrics


View Article As

 


Downlaod Files