Cytopreparatory Techniques

  • Gary W. Gill
  • William N. CrabtreeEmail author
  • Deidra P. Kelly


Nomenclature reporting systems for exfoliative cytopathology must include a description of specimen collection and processing for these are the first steps in the diagnostic process and influence all the steps downstream. Regardless of their technical details, collection and preparation methods must allow for the adequate presentation of cellular findings for diagnostic interpretation. First, efforts must be made to harvest fresh viable cells with minimal degeneration. Second, the cells must be concentrated and transferred from a fluid suspension onto a clean glass surface in a way that allows the cells to adhere and flatten in a predictable way. Third, the preparation must be fixed to retain cellular features. Finally, the slide with the cells on it must be stained and mounted. Each of these steps can be done in a variety of ways, but without an explicit acknowledgement and validation of each step, quality control of the diagnostic process is sure to be elusive.


Urine collection Urine processing Preliminary microscopic specimen assessment Cytopreparation Cytomorphology 


  1. 1.
    Awad S, Allison SP, Lobo DN. The history of 0.9% saline. Clin Nutr. 2008;27:179–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pomerat CM, Overman RR. Electrolytes and plasma expanders – I. Reaction of human cells in perfusion chambers with phase contrast, time-lapse cine records. Z Zellforsch Mikrosk Anat. 1956;45:2–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gill GW. Cytopreparation: principles & practice. In: Rosenthal DL, series editor. Essentials in cytopathology, Vol. 12. New York: Springer; 2013Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crabtree WN, Murphy WM. The value of ethanol as a fixative in urinary cytology. Acta Cytol. 1980;24:452–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murphy WM. Current status of urinary cytology in the evaluation of bladder neoplasms. Hum Pathol. 1990;21:886–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murphy WM, Crabtree WN, Jukkola AF, Soloway MS. The diagnostic value of urine versus bladder washing in patients with bladder cancer. J Urol. 1981;126:320–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beyer-Boon ME, de Voogt HJ, van der Velde EA, Brussee JA, Schaberg A. The efficacy of urinary cytology in the detection of urothelial tumours. Sensitivity and specificity of urinary cytology. Urol Res. 1978;6:3–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beyer-Boon ME, Voorn-den Hollander MJ. Cell yield obtained with various cytopreparatory techniques for urinary cytology. Acta Cytol. 1978;22:589–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beyer-Boon ME, van der Voorn-Den Hollander MJ, Arentz PW, Cornelisse CJ, Schaberg A, Fox CH. Effect of various routine cytopreparatory techniques on normal urothelial cells and their nuclei. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand A. 1979;87:63–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Voss JS, Kipp BR, Krueger AK, Clayton AC, Halling KC, Karnes RJ, et al. Changes in specimen preparation method may impact urine cytologic evaluation. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130:428–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hundley AF, Maygarden S, Wu JM, Visco AG, Connolly A. Adequacy of urine cytology specimens: an assessment of collection techniques. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:997–1001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prather J, Arville B, Chatt G, Pambuccian SE, Wojcik EM, Quek ML, Barkan GA. Evidence-based adequacy criteria for urinary bladder barbotage cytology. J Am Soc Cytol. 2015;4:57–62.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gill GW. Chapter 28: The laboratory. In: DeMay RM, editor. The Art & science of cytopathology, vol. 3. 2nd ed. Chicago: ASCP Press; 2011. p. 1539–92.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gill GW. Chapter 6: Fixation and specimen processing. In: Gupta PK, Baloch ZW, editors. Cytohistology of small tissue samples. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 148–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary W. Gill
    • 1
  • William N. Crabtree
    • 2
    Email author
  • Deidra P. Kelly
    • 3
  1. 1.Cyto-Logics, Inc.IndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineIndiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University Health Pathology LaboratoryIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of PathologyJohns Hopkins HospitalBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations