Liquid-Based Cytology and Automated Screening Devices in Cytology Sample

  • Pranab Dey


The liquid-based cytology (LBC) is an increasingly popular technique in cervical and exfoliative cytology processing. LBC is free of blood, mucus and drying artefact, and it provides clean, monolayered smear in small area of the slide. Presently two widely used techniques of LBC are available in the market: ThinPrep and SurePath. The present chapter discusses the basic principle and technique of these two systems. Relative advantages and disadvantages of LBC and conventional preparations are also discussed. The chapter also elucidates the principle of the two types of automated screening devices (BD FocalPoint GS Imaging System and Hologic’l ThinPrep Imaging System) in cervical cytology. Each system has its own advantages and limitations.


Liquid-based cytology Monolayered smear ThinPrep SurePath Automated screening device BD FocalPoint GS Imaging System Hologic l ThinPrep Imaging System 


  1. 1.
    Luthra UK, Chishti M, Dey P, Jolly SV, Abdulla M, Das DK, et al. Performance of ThinPrep smear method in a gynaecology outpatient setting in Kuwait. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:303–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moseley RP, Paget S. Liquid-based cytology: is the way forward? Cytopathology. 2002;13:71–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herbert A, Johnson J. Personal view. Is it reality or an illusion that liquid-based cytology is better than conventional cervical smears? Cytopathology. 2001;12(6):383–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, Saville AM. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet. 2006;367(9505):122–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colgan TJ, Bon N, Clipsham S, Gardiner G, Sumner J, Walley V, McLachlin CM. A validation study of the FocalPoint GS imaging system for gynecologic cytology screening. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121(4):189–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Passamonti B, Bulletti S, Camilli M, D’Amico MR, Di Dato E, Gustinucci D, Martinelli N, Malaspina M, Spita N. Evaluation of the FocalPoint GS system performance in an Italian population-based screening of cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 2007;51(6):865–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dawson AE. Can we change the way we screen?: the ThinPrep Imaging System. Cancer. 2004;102(6):340–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chivukula M, Saad RS, Elishaev E, White S, Mauser N, Dabbs DJ. Introduction of the Thin Prep Imaging System (TIS): experience in a high volume academic practice. Cytojournal. 2007;4:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Cubie H, Desai M, Dunn G, Legood R, Gray A, Sadique Z, Moss S, MAVARIC Trial Study Group. MAVARIC - a comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(3):iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–170.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pranab Dey
    • 1
  1. 1.Education and Research (PGIMER)Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER)ChandigarhIndia

Personalised recommendations