Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2026
Impression Cytology of the Lid Wiper Area
Published on: August 9, 2016
Imprint cytologic examination as an adjunct to frozen section
1Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
Insights
Imprint cytology is a valuable tool alongside frozen sections for diagnosing tumors and infections. This method enhances diagnostic accuracy, particularly for challenging specimens like small biopsies and lymph nodes.
Area of Science:
- Surgical Pathology
- Cytopathology
Background:
- Frozen sections are a standard intraoperative diagnostic tool.
- Imprint cytology can supplement frozen section analysis, especially in complex cases.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the diagnostic utility of imprint cytology as an adjunct to frozen sections.
- To assess the accuracy of imprint cytology in various specimen types.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 80 cases undergoing both frozen section and imprint cytologic examination.
- Comparison of diagnostic concordance between the two methods.
Main Results:
- High diagnostic accuracy for benign (90.6%) and malignant tumors (93.7%).
- Low false positive rate (2.5%) for borderline ovarian tumors.
- Low false negative rate (5%), with most attributed to insufficient material.
Conclusions:
- Imprint cytology is a reliable and accurate method when used with frozen sections.
- It is particularly beneficial for small biopsies, lymph nodes, and hemorrhagic tissues.
- This technique improves intraoperative diagnostic yield and patient management.
Abstract:
Imprint cytologic examination should be performed in all cases of frozen sections, especially when tumor or infectious agents are suspected. It has been shown to be a useful adjunct to the use of frozen sections. It gives superior results in cases of small biopsied specimens, lymph nodes, infective cases, isolated tumor cells or hemorrhagic tissue. From our series of 80 cases, the total diagnostic accuracy was 29/32 cases (90.6%) for benign tumors, 45/48 cases (93.7%) for malignant tumors, with 2/80 cases (2.5%) of false positive rate in borderline ovarian tumors, and 4/80 cases (5%) of false negative rate, in which 3 cases were due to insufficient material.
