OBJECTIVE: Atypical glandular cell (AGC) Pap interpretations and screening for glandular neoplasias remain major challenges. We document the largest reported AGC histopathologic follow-up experience and include verification bias-adjusted data on laboratory screening sensitivity. METHODS: AGC Pap tests of endocervical origin (AGC-EC), endometrial origin (AGC-EM), and not otherwise specified (AGC-NOS) were documented at a center serving an older low risk population. 98% of Pap tests were liquid-based cytology (LBC) specimens screened using computer-assisted screening. Follow-up diagnoses were correlated with cytology and stratified into age groups. Screening sensitivity was assessed by examining Pap results during 1 year preceding neoplastic diagnoses. Verification bias was adjusted with findings in over 2000 patients with hysterectomies. RESULTS: Of 247,131 Pap tests, 1021 (0.41%) reported AGC results and 662 cases had tissue follow-up. Precancerous or malignant neoplastic histologic outcomes were documented in 101 patients (15.3%), including 8.3% cervical, 6.3% endometrial, and 0.6% ovarian. AGC results were most often associated with neoplastic cervical outcomes in women younger than 40 and with neoplastic endometrial outcomes in women 50 or older. AGC-NOS with a squamous cell abnormality and AGC-EC results suggested cervical neoplasia, while AGC-EM results suggested endometrial neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: AGC Pap results detected significant numbers of cervical and non-cervical neoplasias. Since 38 of 44 (86%) of AGC-detected carcinomas were endometrial or ovarian, HPV co-testing would not have aided screening in detecting the majority of malignancies diagnosed after AGC Pap results. Verification bias-adjusted Pap screening sensitivity in the laboratory for detection of significant neoplastic cervical disease was 93%.
OBJECTIVE: Atypical glandular cell (AGC) Pap interpretations and screening for glandular neoplasias remain major challenges. We document the largest reported AGC histopathologic follow-up experience and include verification bias-adjusted data on laboratory screening sensitivity. METHODS: AGC Pap tests of endocervical origin (AGC-EC), endometrial origin (AGC-EM), and not otherwise specified (AGC-NOS) were documented at a center serving an older low risk population. 98% of Pap tests were liquid-based cytology (LBC) specimens screened using computer-assisted screening. Follow-up diagnoses were correlated with cytology and stratified into age groups. Screening sensitivity was assessed by examining Pap results during 1 year preceding neoplastic diagnoses. Verification bias was adjusted with findings in over 2000 patients with hysterectomies. RESULTS: Of 247,131 Pap tests, 1021 (0.41%) reported AGC results and 662 cases had tissue follow-up. Precancerous or malignant neoplastic histologic outcomes were documented in 101 patients (15.3%), including 8.3% cervical, 6.3% endometrial, and 0.6% ovarian. AGC results were most often associated with neoplastic cervical outcomes in women younger than 40 and with neoplastic endometrial outcomes in women 50 or older. AGC-NOS with a squamous cell abnormality and AGC-EC results suggested cervical neoplasia, while AGC-EM results suggested endometrial neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: AGC Pap results detected significant numbers of cervical and non-cervical neoplasias. Since 38 of 44 (86%) of AGC-detected carcinomas were endometrial or ovarian, HPV co-testing would not have aided screening in detecting the majority of malignancies diagnosed after AGC Pap results. Verification bias-adjusted Pap screening sensitivity in the laboratory for detection of significant neoplastic cervical disease was 93%.
Authors: Yuxuan Wang; Lu Li; Christopher Douville; Joshua D Cohen; Ting-Tai Yen; Isaac Kinde; Karin Sundfelt; Susanne K Kjær; Ralph H Hruban; Ie-Ming Shih; Tian-Li Wang; Robert J Kurman; Simeon Springer; Janine Ptak; Maria Popoli; Joy Schaefer; Natalie Silliman; Lisa Dobbyn; Edward J Tanner; Ana Angarita; Maria Lycke; Kirsten Jochumsen; Bahman Afsari; Ludmila Danilova; Douglas A Levine; Kris Jardon; Xing Zeng; Jocelyne Arseneau; Lili Fu; Luis A Diaz; Rachel Karchin; Cristian Tomasetti; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Amanda N Fader; Lucy Gilbert; Nickolas Papadopoulos Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Longwen Chen; Christine N Booth; Julie A Shorie; Jennifer A Brainard; Matthew A Zarka Journal: Cytojournal Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 2.091