Leishman Giemsa cocktail as a new, potentially useful cytological technique comparable to Papanicolaou staining for oral cancer diagnosis

• Published in: Journal of cytology Vol. 30; no. 1; pp. 18 - 22
• Main Authors: Belgaumi, U, Shetty, P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Medknow Publications Pvt Ltd 01.01.2013; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Subjects: Analysis; Cancer; Cellular biology; Cytology; oral squamous cell carcinoma; Papanicolaou stain; Romanowsky; Giemsa stain; Diagnosis; Medical diagnosis; Medical screening; Methods; Mouth cancer; Oral cancer; Original; Squamous cell carcinoma; oral squamous cell carcinoma; Papanicolaou stain; Romanowsky; Giemsa stain; Cytology
• ISSN: 0970-9371; 0974-5165
• DOI: 10.4103/0970-9371.107507

Background: Papanicolaou staining is commonly used for staining exfoliative cytology smears with Romanowsky stains being used sparingly. Leishman Giemsa (LG) cocktail, being a relatively new staining technique, has not been used in exfoliative cytology. This easy, cost-effective and one-step technique warrants further study because of its potential application in screening of oral cancer. Aim: To study and evaluate the diagnostic efficiency and reliability of Leishman Giemsa (LG) cocktail in comparison with Papanicolaou (Pap) and May-Grόnwald Giemsa (MGG) stains in exfoliated cells for the detection of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Materials and Methods: Three smears were prepared from each 100 controls (buccal mucosa) and 100 patients, clinically diagnosed with oral squamous cell carcinoma and stained with Pap, MGG and LG cocktail stains. The slides were evaluated for the staining characteristics of nucleus and cytoplasm. The diagnostic efficiency of each stain was evaluated by comparing the cytologic diagnosis of each stain with the histopathological diagnosis. Finally, the diagnostic reliability was evaluated by comparing the three stains with each other and the histologic diagnosis. Statistical Analysis: The data were statistically evaluated with Friedman test, Wilcoxon sign rank test and McNemar chi square test using SPSS15 software. Results: The results from the histologically confirmed cases of squamous cell carcinoma and the number of cases diagnosed by Pap and LG cocktail were almost identical and both were superior to MGG. The P value obtained for the confirmed cases of squamous cell carcinoma in comparison for Pap vs MGG was 0.001, MGG vs LG cocktail was 0.001 and LG cocktail vs Pap was 0.157. Hence, no statistical significant difference was observed between the diagnostic ability of Pap and LG cocktail stains. Conclusion: LG cocktail is an easy, cost-effective and one-step technique comparable to Pap staining; however, it warrants further study in its potential application in screening of oral cancer.