Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Processing, Reporting, and Sensitivity of Cervical Cytology with an Emphasis on Glandular Lesions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Glandular Lesions of the Uterine Cervix

Part of the book series: Essentials in Cytopathology ((EICP,volume 19))

  • 987 Accesses

Abstract

The accuracy of cervical cytology interpretation is dependent on multiple factors: adequate sampling of the transformation zone of the cervix, proper preparation of the cytology slide, correlation of the cytology findings with clinical data provided on the requisition, reporting format, and terminology. In this chapter preanalytic factors impacting recognition of glandular lesions on cervical cytology are discussed, as well as the sensitivity of cervical cytology for glandular lesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rubio CA. The false negative smear. II. The trapping effect of collecting instruments. Obstet Gynecol. 1977;49(5):576–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Marchand L, Mundt M, Klein G, Agarwal SC. Optimal collection technique and devices for a quality pap smear. WMJ. 2005;104(6):51–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Practice Bulletin Number 131 A. Screening for cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:122–38.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Massuger LF, Bulten J. Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1327–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):167–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fontaine D, Narine N, Naugler C. Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2012;2(2):e000847.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, Dalla Palma P, Naldoni C, et al. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;335(7609):28.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review [see comment]. Lancet. 2006;367(9505):122–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Whitlock EP, Vesco KK, Eder M, Lin JS, Senger CA, Burda BU. Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing to screen for cervical cancer: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(10):687–97; W214–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee KR, Darragh TM, Joste NE, Krane JF, Sherman ME, Hurley LB, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): interobserver reproducibility in cervical smears and corresponding thin-layer preparations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117(1):96–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang N, Emancipator SN, Rose P, Rodriguez M, Abdul-Karim FW. Histologic follow-up of atypical endocervical cells. Liquid-based, thin-layer preparation vs. conventional Pap smear. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(3):453–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bai H, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM. ThinPrep Pap Test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23(1):19–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hecht JL, Sheets EE, Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin-layer preparations. Cancer. 2002;96(1):1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Burnley C, Dudding N, Parker M, Parsons P, Whitaker CJ, Young W. Glandular neoplasia and borderline endocervical reporting rates before and after conversion to the SurePath(TM) liquid-based cytology (LBC) system. Diagn Cytopathol. 2011;39(12):869–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vooijs GP, van der Graaf Y, Elias AG. Cellular composition of cervical smears in relation to the day of the menstrual cycle and the method of contraception. Acta Cytol. 1987;31(4):417–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sherman ME, Carreon JD, Schiffman M. Performance of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in relation to the menstrual cycle. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(11):1690–6.

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Amies AM, Miller L, Lee SK, Koutsky L. The effect of vaginal speculum lubrication on the rate of unsatisfactory cervical cytology diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(5 Pt 1):889–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Griffith WF, Stuart GS, Gluck KL, Heartwell SF. Vaginal speculum lubrication and its effects on cervical cytology and microbiology. Contraception. 2005;72(1):60–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bowditch RC, Clarke JM, Baird PJ, Greenberg ML. Results of an Australian trial using SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology with FocalPoint computer-assisted screening technology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012;40(12):1093–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Friedlander MA, Rudomina D, Lin O. Effectiveness of the Thin Prep Imaging System in the detection of adenocarcinoma of the gynecologic system. Cancer. 2008;114(1):7–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chute DJ, Lim H, Kong CS. BD focalpoint slide profiler performance with atypical glandular cells on SurePath Papanicolaou smears. Cancer Cytopathol. 2010;118(2):68–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol. 1999;43(1):81–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schorge JO, Hossein Saboorian M, Hynan L, Ashfaq R. ThinPrep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer. 2002;96(6):338–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Adhya AK, Mahesha V, Srinivasan R, Nijhawan R, Rajwanshi A, Suri V, et al. Atypical glandular cells in cervical smears: histological correlation and a suggested plan of management based on age of the patient in a low-resource setting. Cytopathology. 2009;20(6):375–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhao C, Austin RM, Pan J, Barr N, Martin SE, Raza A, et al. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells in conventional pap smears in a large, high-risk U.S. west coast minority population. Acta Cytol. 2009;53(2):153–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Goff BA, Atanasoff P, Brown E, Muntz HG, Bell DA, Rice LW. Endocervical glandular atypia in Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79(1):101–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schnatz PF, Guile M, O’Sullivan DM, Sorosky JI. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(3):701–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. DeSimone CP, Day ME, Tovar MM, Dietrich 3rd CS, Eastham ML, Modesitt SC. Rate of pathology from atypical glandular cell Pap tests classified by the Bethesda 2001 nomenclature. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(6):1285–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sharpless KE, Schnatz PF, Mandavilli S, Greene JF, Sorosky JI. Dysplasia associated with atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(3):494–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Valdini A, Vaccaro C, Pechinsky G, Abernathy V. Incidence and evaluation of an AGUS Papanicolaou smear in primary care. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14(3):172–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Duska LR, Flynn CF, Chen A, Whall-Strojwas D, Goodman A. Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(2):278–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schoolland M, Segal A, Allpress S, Miranda A, Frost FA, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Cancer. 2002;96(6):330–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schoolland M, Allpress S, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Cancer. 2002;96(1):5–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ruba S, Schoolland M, Allpress S, Sterrett G. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: screening and diagnostic errors in Papanicolaou smears. Cancer. 2004;102(5):280–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Krane JF, Granter SR, Trask CE, Hogan CL, Lee KR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases. Cancer. 2001;93(1):8–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. van Aspert-van Erp AJ, Smedts FM, Vooijs GP. Severe cervical glandular cell lesions with coexisting squamous cell lesions. Cancer. 2004;102(4):218–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kalir T, Simsir A, Demopoulos HB, Demopoulos RI. Obstacles to the early detection of endocervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2005;24(4):399–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Rosemary H. Tambouret MD & David C. Wilbur MD

Authors
  1. Rosemary H. Tambouret MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David C. Wilbur MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tambouret, R.H., Wilbur, D.C. (2015). Processing, Reporting, and Sensitivity of Cervical Cytology with an Emphasis on Glandular Lesions. In: Glandular Lesions of the Uterine Cervix. Essentials in Cytopathology, vol 19. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1989-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1989-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1988-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1989-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation