| Literature DB >> 21961080 |
Yosuke Kawakami1, Tamaki Toda, Toshinao Nishimura, Junichi Sakane, Kazuya Kuraoka, Kazuhiro Takehara, Tomoya Mizunoe, Kiyomi Taniyama.
Abstract
Conventional Papanicolaou smear method is still commonly used for cervical cancer screening in Japan, despite the liquid-based cytology (LBC) that has become a global tendency in the world recently. One of the obstacles in the way of popularization of this method seems to be the confusion as to diagnosis upon cervical glandular lesions. We performed comparison study between LBC and conventional Papanicolaou smear about cytological diagnosis using split-sample method in 4522 patients. In 13 cases analyses, which were reported with either AGC or adenocarcinoma by either method, LBC tends to be milder than that by conventional smear, however, the credibility of LBC is considered to be near to that of conventional smear with regard to screening for glandular abnormalities. These results indicate that cervical cancer screening should shift to LBC under the enough experience and appropriate dealing with the cytological diagnosis.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21961080 PMCID: PMC3179896 DOI: 10.4061/2011/743836
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Patholog Res Int ISSN: 2042-003X
Relationship between conventional smear and ThinPrep method.
| ThinPrep (TP) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NILM | ASC-US | ASC-H | AGC | LSIL | HSIL | HSILw/FSFI | AIS | SCC | ADC | ADSQ | Total | ||
| Conventional Smear | NILM | 35 | 1 | 1 | 33 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4062 | |
| ASC-US | 47 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 71 | ||
| ASC-H | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | ||
| AGC | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | ||
| LSIL | 73 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 221 | ||
| HSIL | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 112 | ||
| HSILw/FSFI | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||
| AIS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| SCC | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | ||
| ADC | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | ||
| ADSQ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Total | 4119 | 72 | 3 | 6 | 168 | 120 | 5 | 0 | 25 | 4 | 0 | 4522 | |
NILM: negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy; ASC-US: atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; ASC-H: atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; AGC: atypical glandular cells; LSIL: low-grade intraepithelial cells; HSIL: high-grade intraepithelial lesion; FSFI: HSIL features suspicious for invasion; AIS: adenocarcinoma in-situ; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; ADC: adenocarcinoma; ADSQ: adenosquamous cell carcinoma.
Up-graded case by ThinPrep method.
| Conventional smear | ThinPrep | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | ASC-US | ASC-H | AGC | LSIL | HSIL | FSFI | SCC/ADC | Up-grading by TP | ||
| NILM | 4062 | 35 | 1 | 1 | 33 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 77 | 1.90% |
| ASC-US | 71 | — | — | — | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 16.90% |
| ASC-H | 9 | — | — | — | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 44.40% |
| AGC | 8 | — | — | — | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| LSIL | 221 | — | — | — | — | 27 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 12.20% |
| HSIL | 112 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 | 5 | 7 | 6.30% |
| Total | 4483 | 35 | 1 | 1 | 45 | 37 | 3 | 5 | 127 | 2.80% |
Up-graded case by conventional smear method.
| ThinPrep | Conventional smear | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | ASC-US | ASC-H | AGC | LSIL | HSIL | FSFI | SCC/ADC | Up-grading by TP | ||
| NILM | 4119 | 47 | 2 | 5 | 73 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 134 | 3.30% |
| ASC-US | 72 | — | — | — | 17 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 22 | 30.60% |
| ASC-H | 3 | — | — | — | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 33.30% |
| AGC | 6 | — | — | — | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 50.00% |
| LSIL | 168 | — | — | — | — | 19 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 11.30% |
| HSIL | 120 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5.00% |
| Total | 4488 | 47 | 2 | 5 | 90 | 28 | 3 | 10 | 185 | 4.10% |
Glandular abnormalities in TBS.
| Case | Age | CS | TP | HPV | Histology in cervical biopsy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 27 | NILM | AGC | (−) | Endometrial pollyp |
| 2 | 38 | AGC | NILM | 56+ | ND |
| 3 | 54 | AGC | NILM | 16+ | Atypical endometrial hyperplasiaa |
| 4 | 25 | AGC | NILM | (−) | ND |
| 5 | 61 | AGC | NILM | (−) | ND |
| 6 | 50 | AGC | AGC | 52+ | Endometrioid adenoca, G2a |
| 7 | 36 | AGC | AGC | 16+ | ND |
| 8 | 42 | AGC | NILM | (−) | Mild glandular dysplasia |
| 9 | 74 | AGC | ASC-US | (−) | clear cell carcinoma |
| 10 | 58 | AdenoCa | AGC | (−) | ND |
| 11 | 40 | AdenoCa | AdenoCa | (−) | Endometrioid adenoca, G1a |
| 12 | 65 | AdenoCa | AGC | (−) | Endometrioid adenoca, G1>G2a |
| 13 | 74 | AdenoCa | AGC | (−) | Ovarian cancerb |
aDisease existed in uterine corpus diagnosed in surgical samples.
bDiagnosed in surgical samples.
Figure 1Case 9. (a) CS method. A small-crowded cluster is comprised of atypical cells, which have relatively distinct nuclei with indented outlines, suggesting AGC. (b) TP method. Marginal number of atypical cells with dense cytosol in small monolayer cluster were diagnosed as ASC-US (Papanicolaou; original magnification, x600, resp.).
Figure 2Case 12. (a) CS method. A loosely cohesive and crowded tissue fragment displays malignant cells, which have sharp-ended nuclei with enlarged nucleoli, in the myxoid and collagenized matrix, as considered to be adenocarcinoma. (b) TP method. A small number of clusters with irregularly crowded atypical cells are observed in the background, which is clean and devoid of single cells. Since no other such a cluster was observed in the specimen, this case was diagnosed as AGC (Papanicolaou; original magnification, x600, resp.).