Search

Cell-block preparations have become an essential part of integrated cytology diagnosis. They are essentially microbiopsies that are formalin fixed and embedded in paraffin. This has become more prevalent with greater sample procurement due to the advent of newer biopsy techniques and needles. Cell-blocks allow retrieval of small tissue fragments from cytology specimens that sometimes cannot be processed by alternate cytologic techniques. They represent concentrated, cell-enriched preparations that provide cytologists with the opportunity to evaluate cellular architecture, as well as to perform ancillary testing. A cell-block compatible sample may thus obviate the need for a more invasive procedure such as a tissue biopsy. Microscopic examination of cell-blocks is quick, avoids obscuring material, permits cells to be evaluated in one focal plane, and allows the histologic architecture such as glandular differentiation, papillary formations, and sometimes invasion to be easily identified. This new era of "cytohistology" accordingly requires practicing cytologists to become more familiar with histopathology. This review article discusses the benefit of various architectural patterns identifiable in cell-blocks employed as an adjunct to Pap tests, exfoliative fluid specimens, and fine-needle aspirations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Telecytology for second opinion consultation has largely been limited by technical issues, such as the inability to focus well on cellular material. Nevertheless, international telecytology consultation was undertaken at our institution with partners in China and Italy. To overcome issues with scanning cytology slides, we adopted a cell‐block (CB) preference for teleconsultation. Methods: Telecytology consultation cases received over a 7.5‐year period were retrospectively reviewed. Cytology glass slides were scanned without Z‐stacking using different whole slide scanners. For one referring site, only haematoxylin‐eosin‐stained CBs were scanned, as well as immunostains requested by consultants. For another host centre, aspirate smears were also scanned in some cases. Results: A total of 51 non‐gynaecological cases (44 CB only) were evaluated from 48 patients. The specimens included pleural fluids (19), pancreas (14), lymph nodes (6), peritoneal fluids (2) and miscellaneous samples (10). The cytological diagnoses spectrum included 16 (31.37%) cases positive for malignancy, 7 (13.72%) positive for neoplasm, 6 (11.76%) suspicious for malignancy, 10 (19.60%) atypical, 10 (19.60%) negative for malignancy and 2 (3.92%) non‐diagnostic. In 42 (82.35%) cases, immunocytochemistry was requested. Turn‐around‐time ranged from 1.5 to 306 hours. Conclusions: Our experience shows that international telecytology for consultation purposes involving non‐gynaecological cases is feasible. A second opinion interpretation was rendered in the majority (64.7%) of cases. Utilising CB only for cytology consultations by whole slide imaging solved focus issues that typically plague evaluation of cytology aspirate smears. The role of telecytology for consultation is emerging. This paper describes the authors experience with the use of cell blocks and whole slide imaging for international telecytology consultation and outlines key factors responsible for a successful telecytology consultation service at an academic institution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]