Nasal Cytology: A Comparative Study of Two Different Techniques of Processing-Smeared versus Cytocentrifuged Slides.

Maria Laura Bartoli,Manuela Latorre,Veronica Seccia,Mariella Scarano,Lodovica Cristofani-Mencacci,Pierluigi Paggiaro,Andrea Nacci,Elena Bacci

doi:10.1155/2018/1640180

Maria Laura Bartoli, Manuela Latorre + Show 6 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1640180

Copy DOI

Abstract

Nasal cytology is a precious tool to study nasal disorders, but in current literature, there is no consensus on the standardization of the processing procedure of the obtained samples. Therefore, we decided to test on specimens obtained by nasal scraping, a common way of nasal specimen sampling, two different processing techniques, smear and cytocentrifugation, and compare them in terms of inflammatory cell content, quality of slides, and validity on clinical assessment. We analyzed 105 patients with suspected sinonasal diseases, and in each patient, we performed nasal cytology with both techniques. Our analysis showed a good correlation between the two techniques for neutrophil and eosinophil percentages, both returned well-preserved cells, and showed higher neutrophil percentage in males and in smokers and higher eosinophil percentage in patients with polyposis, with a good concordance with clinical symptoms, as measured by a specific disease-related questionnaire (Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22). Technically speaking, smeared slides were easier to prepare, with no need of dedicated equipment, but cell distribution was better in cytocentrifuged slides allowing shorter reading time. In conclusion, both techniques can be considered superimposable and worthy to be used.

Highlights

Chronic rhinitis is a very common condition throughout the world, with up to 20 million patients affected by nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) in the United States and 50 million in Europe [1]
Our analysis showed a good correlation between the two techniques for neutrophil and eosinophil percentages, both returned well-preserved cells, and showed higher neutrophil percentage in males and in smokers and higher eosinophil percentage in patients with polyposis, with a good concordance with clinical symptoms, as measured by a specific disease-related questionnaire (Sino-Nasal Outcome Test22)
Great importance is nowadays given to this condition, for its economic burdens [2] and for its impact on Quality of Life (QoL): chronic rhinitis is associated with poorer job or school performance and it may interfere with sleep, intellectual functioning, and recreational activities

Summary

Introduction

Chronic rhinitis is a very common condition throughout the world, with up to 20 million patients affected by nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) in the United States and 50 million in Europe [1]. AR and NAR may coexist in the same patient, resulting in the diagnosis of mixed rhinitis (MR) [4] or overlapped rhinitis [5]. NAR can be further classified in different subtypes on the basis of cytological criteria, in accordance with prevalent inflammatory cellular population at nasal cytology (with eosinophils: NARES; with neutrophils: NARNE; with eosinophils and mast cells: NARESMA; with only mast cells: NARMA) [3, 6] and/or according to clinical characteristics (e.g., senile, gustatory, or atrophic) [3, 7]. Nasal inflammation is frequently reported in systemic disorders, like EGPA [8] or rheumatologic conditions [9]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion