ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
A Novel Manual "Centrifuged-Enhanced" Cytosmear Technique for Improving Hypocellular Cytology in the Diagnosis of Vitreoretinal Lymphoma.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop a manual "centrifuged-enhanced cytosmear" technique for cytologic and immunohistochemical analysis of hypocellular vitreous biopsy specimens in vitreoretinal lymphoma (VRL). Methods: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma cells were diluted to simulate vitreous biopsy yields (1000-50,000 cells/100 µL) and fixed in PreservCyt. Samples were centrifuged in a standard laboratory centrifuge and deposited into 1000 cells/100 µL PAP pen-defined circles on charged slides. Smears were air-dried, methanol-fixed, and stained with toluidine blue and CD20 immunohistochemistry (IHC). Cell density per high-power field (40×) was quantified and compared with noncentrifuged smears. Reproducibility was assessed across replicates and between two operators. Genomic DNA concentration was measured. Results: Centrifuged-enhanced cytosmears demonstrated significantly higher cellular densities than standard smears across all concentrations (P < 0.05), especially at 1000 to 2000 cells/100 µL, where standard smears failed to detect cells. CD20 IHC was successful without cell dropout. Genomic DNA yields ranged from 5.25 ng (1000 cells) to 143 ng (50,000 cells). Interuser variability was not significant. Comparison with cytospin clinical cases showed that centrifuged-enhanced cytosmears are of comparable cellularity to clinical cases. Conclusions: This centrifuged-enhanced cytosmear technique reliably concentrates sparse cells for cytology and IHC. It is reproducible and cost-effective, requiring no specialized equipment. Genomic DNA yields at very low cell counts of 1000 cells/100 µL is potentially sufficient for adjuvant MYD88 mutation analysis and can be used to support cytology diagnosis. Translational Relevance: The centrifuged-enhanced cytosmear offers an accessible alternative to cytospin preparations, enabling VRL diagnosis and IHC analysis in settings lacking cytology infrastructure or where cell blocks cannot be performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.