Advertisement

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

  • Rosemary H. Tambouret
  • David C. Wilbur
Chapter
Part of the Essentials in Cytopathology book series (EICP, volume 19)

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.

Keywords

Conventional cytology Liquid based Imaging Requisition Bethesda System Sensitivity 

References

  1. 1.
    Rubio CA. The false negative smear. II. The trapping effect of collecting instruments. Obstet Gynecol. 1977;49(5):576–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Practice Bulletin Number 131 A. Screening for cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:122–38.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schoolland M, Allpress S, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Cancer. 2002;96(1):5–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosemary H. Tambouret
    • 1
  • David C. Wilbur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PathologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations