Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2016; 74(10): 816-822
DOI: 10.1590/0004-282X20160120
ARTICLE

Higher positive identification of malignant CSF cells using the cytocentrifuge than the Suta chamber

A identificação de células neoplásicas no LCR foi maior com o uso da citocentrifuga do que com câmara de Suta
Sérgio Monteiro de Almeida
1   Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba PR, Brasil;
2   Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Instituto de Pesquisa Pelé Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba PR, Brasil.
,
Indianara Rotta
1   Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba PR, Brasil;
2   Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Instituto de Pesquisa Pelé Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba PR, Brasil.
,
Arnaldo José de Conto
1   Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba PR, Brasil;
2   Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Instituto de Pesquisa Pelé Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba PR, Brasil.
,
Dario Antonelli Filho
1   Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba PR, Brasil;
2   Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Instituto de Pesquisa Pelé Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba PR, Brasil.
,
Carlos Dabdoub Roda
1   Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba PR, Brasil;
2   Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Instituto de Pesquisa Pelé Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba PR, Brasil.
,
Edna Yoshiko Yamada
1   Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba PR, Brasil;
2   Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Instituto de Pesquisa Pelé Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba PR, Brasil.
,
Gisele M. B. Singer
1   Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba PR, Brasil;
2   Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Instituto de Pesquisa Pelé Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba PR, Brasil.
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective To define how to best handle cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens to obtain the highest positivity rate for the diagnosis of malignancy, comparing two different methods of cell concentration, sedimentation and cytocentrifugation.

Methods A retrospective analysis of 411 CSF reports.

Results This is a descriptive comparative study. The positive identification of malignant CSF cells was higher using the centrifuge than that using the Suta chamber (27.8% vs. 19.0%, respectively; p = 0.038). Centrifuge positively identified higher numbers of malignant cells in samples with a normal concentration of white blood cells (WBCs) (< 5 cells/mm3) and with more than 200 cells/mm3, although this was not statistically significant. There was no lymphocyte loss using either method.

Conclusions Cytocentrifugation positively identified a greater number of malignant cells in the CSF than cytosedimentation with the Suta chamber. However, there was no difference between the methods when the WBC counts were within the normal range.

RESUMO

Objetivo Definir qual a melhor forma de concentrar amostras de LCR para obter maior porcentagem de positividade para o diagnóstico de infiltração neoplásica. comparando dois métodos diferentes de concentração de células, sedimentação e citocentrifugação.

Métodos Análise retrospectiva de 411 laudos de LCR.

Resultados Estudo comparativo descritivo. A identificação de células neoplásicas no LCR foi mais elevada quando usada a citocentrífuga do que a câmara de Suta (28% vs 19,0%, respectivamente; p = 0,038). Centrifugação identificou maior número de células neoplásicas em amostras com concentração de células < 5 células/mm3 e superior a 200 células/mm3, embora não significativo. Não houve perda de linfócitos usando qualquer um dos métodos.

Conclusões A citocentrifugação identificou um número maior de células malignas no LCR do que a sedimentação com a câmara de Suta. No entanto, não houve diferença entre os métodos quando as contagens de leucócitos estavam dentro do intervalo normal.

cerebrospinal fluid - cytology, centrifugation, sedimentation
líquido cefalorraquidiano - citologia, centrifugação, sedimentação


Publication History

Received: 15 September 2015

Accepted: 01 July 2016

Article published online:
06 September 2023

© 2023. Academia Brasileira de Neurologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Chamberlain MC: Lymphomatous meningitis in primary central nervous system lymphoma. Neurosurg Focus. 2006;21(5):E6. doi:10.3171/foc.2006.21.5.7
  • 2 MacKenzie JM. Malignant meningitis: a rational approach to cerebrospinal fluid cytology. J Clin Pathol. 1996;49(6):497-9. doi:10.1136/jcp.49.6.497
  • 3 Fleming C, Russcher H, Lindemans J, Jonge R. Clinical relevance and contemporary methods for counting blood cells in body fluids suspected of inflammatory disease. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015;53(11):1689-706. doi:10.1515/cclm-2014-1247
  • 4 Broussalis E, Hutterer M, Oppermann K, Wipfler P, Pilz G, Harrer A et al. Isolated leptomeningeal infiltration of a primary CNS B-cell lymphoma diagnosed by flow cytometry and confirmed by necropsy. Acta Neurol Scand. 2012;126(3):e11-6. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.2011.01630.x
  • 5 Whitmore EL, Hochberg F, Wolfson L, Royalty J, Taft PD. Quantitative cytocentrifugation in the evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid. Acta Cytol. 1982;26(6):847-50.
  • 6 Bigner SH, Johnston WW. The cytopathology of cerebrospinal fluid. II. Metastatic cancer, meningeal carcinomatosis and primary central nervous system neoplasms. Acta Cytol. 1981;25(5):461-79.
  • 7 Kluge H, Roskos M, Kluska MM. Cell preparation (sedimentation) and staining. In: Kluge H, Wieczorek V, Linke E, Zimmermann K, Isenmann S, Witte OW. Atlas of CSF cytology. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2007. p. 8-9.
  • 8 Deisenhammer F, Sellebjerg F, Teunissen CE. Cerebrospinal fluid in clinical neurology. New York: Springer; 2015.
  • 9 Lemitz R, Kleine TO. Liquorzytologie: Ausbeute, verteilung und Darstellung von Leukozyten bei drei sedimenttionsverfahren im Vergleich zu drei zytozentrifugen-Modifikationen. Lab Med. 1994;18:91-9.
  • 10 Seyfert S. An improved sedimentation technique for the cytologic preparation of cerebrospinal fluid cells. Acta Neurol Scand. 1993;88(3):217-20. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.1993.tb04220.x
  • 11 Wiethölter H, Oehmichen M, Sayer H. [Qualitative CSF cell diagnosis: methods and conclusiveness (author’s transl]. MMW Munch Med Wochenschr. 1979;121(18):631-66. German.
  • 12 Bots GT, Went LM, Schaberg A. Results of a sedimentation technique for cytology of cerebrospinal fluid. Acta Cytol. 1964;8(3):234-41.
  • 13 Abbas K A, Lichtman AH, Pober JS. Cellular and molecular immunology. 7th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2011.
  • 14 Dyken PR. Cerebrospinal fuid cytology: practical clinical usefulness. Neurology. 1975;25(3):210-7. doi:10.1212/WNL.25.3.210
  • 15 Glass JP, Melamed M, Chernik NL, Posner JB. Malignant cells in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF): the meaning of a positive CSF cytology. Neurology. 1979;29(10):1369-75. doi:10.1212/WNL.29.10.1369
  • 16 Wasserstrom WR, Glass JP, Posner JB: Diagnosis and treatment of leptomeningeal metastases from solid tumors: experience with 90 patients. Cancer. 1982;49(4):759-72. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19820215)49:4&lt;759::AID-CNCR2820490427&gt;3.0.CO;2-7
  • 17 Oehmichen M. Cerebrospinal fluid cytology: an introduction and atlas. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1976.
  • 18 Woodruff KH. Cerebrospinal fluid cytomorphology using cytocentrifugation. Am J Clin Pathol. 1973;60(5):621-7. doi:10.1093/ajcp/60.5.621
  • 19 Davey DD, Foucar K, Giller R. Millipore filter vs. cytocentrifuge for detection of childhood central nervous system leukemia. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1986;110(8):705-8.
  • 20 Ducos R, Donoso J, Weickhardt U, Vietti TJ. Sedimentation versus cytocentrifugation in the cytologic study of craniospinal fluid. Cancer. 1979;43(4):1479-82. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(197904)43:4&lt;1479::AID-CNCR2820430439&gt;3.0.CO;2-S
  • 21 Glantz MJ, Cole BF, Glantz LK, Cobb J, Mills P, Lekos A et al. Cerebrospinal fluid cytology in patients with cancer: minimizing false-negative results. Cancer. 1998;82(4):733-9. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980215)82:4&lt;733::AID-CNCR17&lt;3.0.CO;2-Z
  • 22 Oostenbrugge RJ, Twijnstra A. Presenting features and value of diagnostic procedures in leptomeningeal metastases. Neurology. 1999;53(2):382-85. doi:10.1212/WNL.53.2.382
  • 23 Watson CW, Hajdu SI. Cytology of primary neoplasm of the central nervous system. Acta Cytol. 1977;21(1):40-7.
  • 24 Sá MJ, Vaz R, Cruz C. Cerebrospinal fluid cytomorphologic findings in 41 intracranial tumors: a retrospective review. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 1995;53(2):218-26. doi:10.1590/S0004-282X1995000200006
  • 25 Liang X, Chen J, Xiao X, Yu Y, Li W, Zhang Z. Automated cell analysis of cerebrospinal fluid with XE-5000. Clin Lab. 2014;60(11):1785-93.
  • 26 Bromberg JE, Breems DA, Kraan J, Bikker G, Holt B, Smitt PS et al. CSF flow cytometry greatly improves diagnostic accuracy in CNS hematologic malignancies. Neurology. 2007;68(20):1674-9. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000261909.28915.83
  • 27 Graaf, MT, Smitt PA, Luitwieler RL, Velzen C, Broek PDM, Kraan J et al. Central memory CD4+ T cells dominate the normal cerebrospinal fluid. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2011;80(1):43-50. doi:10.1002/cyto.b.20542