Touch cytology, a useful diagnostic method for diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal tract infections

Helicobacter pylori detection and antimicrobial susceptibility testing

The discovery of Helicobacter pylori in 1982 was the starting point of a revolution concerning the concepts and management of gastroduodenal diseases. It is now well accepted that the most common stomach disease, peptic ulcer disease, is an infectious disease, and all consensus conferences agree that the causative agent, H. pylori, must be treated with antibiotics. Furthermore, the concept emerged that this bacterium could be the trigger of various malignant diseases of the stomach, and it is now a model for chronic bacterial infections causing cancer. Most of the many different techniques involved in diagnosis of H. pylori infection are performed in clinical microbiology laboratories. The aim of this article is to review the current status of these methods and their application, highlighting the important progress which has been made in the past decade. Both invasive and noninvasive techniques will be reviewed.

Usefulness of Leifson staining method in diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection

The Leifson staining method was used to diagnose Helicobacter pylori infection and was compared to histology, culture, and the rapid urease test (RUT). Histology gave the best sensitivity (98%), compared to Leifson staining (97%), culture (92%), and RUT (85%) (P < 0.005). Leifson staining is a sensitive, rapid, economical method for diagnosis of H. pylori infection in dyspeptic patients.

Diagnosing Helicobacter pylori by imprint cytology: can the same biopsy specimen be used for histology?

Imprint cytology of the gastric mucosa has been found to be very simple, inexpensive, and rapid for diagnosing Helicobacter pylori infection. However, there is a fear that preparing imprint smears may damage the biopsy specimen for subsequent histologic examination. This study was planned to investigate whether this damage happens. Four antral biopsy specimens were obtained from each of the 100 patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Imprint smears were made from two biopsy specimens, which were then fixed in 10% formal saline and sent for histologic study. The third and fourth biopsy specimens were directed fixed in 10% formal saline for histologic examination. Two pathologists examined the imprint smears. Agreement between the two observers was observed in 97% of cases. Beyond-chance agreement was good with a kappa index of 0.90. H. pylori organisms were seen in 82% of biopsy specimens from which imprint smears were prepared and in the same percentage of biopsy specimens that were processed directly. The pathologists could not identify the histologic sections form which imprints were made. It is concluded that imprint cytology is an excellent method of diagnosing H. pylori infection and that preparing imprint smears does not alter the quality of the tissue. The same biopsy specimen can be used for histologic studies.

Detection of infection or infectious agents by use of cytologic and histologic stains

A wide variety of stains are useful for detection of different organisms or, for viruses, the cytopathologic changes they induce, in smears prepared directly from clinical specimens and in tissue sections. Other types of stains, such as hematoxylin and eosin, are used routinely to stain tissue sections and are most valuable for assessing the immunologic response of the host to the invading pathogen. In many cases, the pattern of inflammation provides important clues to diagnosis and helps to guide the selection of additional "special" stains used predominantly for diagnosis of infectious diseases. A stain may be nonspecific, allowing detection of a spectrum of organisms, as do the Papanicolaou stain and silver impregnation methods, or detection of only a limited group of organisms, as do the different acid-fast techniques. Some nonspecific stains, such as the Gram stain, are differential and provide valuable preliminary information concerning identification. Immunohistochemical stains, on the other hand, are specific for a particular organism, although in some cases cross-reactions with other organisms occur. Despite the wealth of information that can be gleaned from a stained smear or section of tissue, however, the specific etiology of an infection often cannot be determined on the basis of only the morphology of the organisms seen; culture data are essential and must be considered in the final diagnosis.

Brush cytology: a reliable method to detect Helicobacter pylori

This study was conducted to verify the reliability of brush cytology in detecting Helicobacter pylori in an unselected group of patients with duodenal ulcer (DU) and nonulcer dyspepsia (NUD). Endoscopy was performed on 416 consecutive patients: group A, 94 with active DU; group B, 176 patients with DU after omeprazole (n = 78), ranitidine (n = 43), or triple anti-H. pylori therapy (n = 55); and group C, 146 patients with NUD. During endoscopy, the gastric mucosa was brushed and two biopsy samples from the antrum and body were obtained for histology. In 65 patients, culture of the brush-collected materials also was performed as was that from of biopsy samples. The overall frequency of H. pylori presence detected by brush cytology was significantly higher compared with that of histology (p < 0.001), particularly in group A (p < 0.05), group C (p < 0.05), and in patients with DU after omeprazole treatment (p < 0.01), but not in patients with DU after ranitidine or anti-H. pylori treatment. The overall frequency of H. pylori-positive cultures from the brush-collected material was higher compared with cultures from the biopsy samples (38.5% vs. 24.6%), particularly in the NUD group (32.6% vs. 16.3%). Brush cytology is more sensitive than histology, besides being faster and cheaper, for the assessment of H. pylori infection, particularly when the density of the bacteria is low.