How accurate is cytological diagnosis of cervical glandular lesions?

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 270-274

  Moreira, Marise A R ^a,b   Longatto Filho, Adhemar ^c,d   Castelo, Adauto ^e   De Barros, Maria Rita Evangelista ^b   Da Silva, Ana Paula ^b   Thomann, Patrícia ^f   Ferraz, Maria Da Gloria Mattosinho De Castro ^e   Das Dores, Gerson Botacini ^f  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF GOIÁS   (Brazil)

^b Department of Citology   (Brazil)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

^d Adolfo Lutz Institute

^e FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^f Digene Brasil   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma; DNA citoliq; Liquid based cytology

Indexed keywords

VIRUS DNA;

ARTICLE; CERVICAL GLANDULAR LESION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX DISEASE; WART VIRUS;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 41449088335     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20799     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810-19.
2. Sherman ME, Dasgupta A, Schiffman M, Nayar R, Solomon D. The Bethesda interobserver reproducibility study (BIRST): A web-based assessment of the Bethesda 2001 system for classifying cervical cytology. Cancer 2007;111:15-25.
3. Confortini M, Di Bonito L, Carozzi F, et al.; GISCi Working Group for Cervical Cytology. Interlaboratory reproducibility of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: A national survey. Cytopathology 2006;17:353-60.
4. Mathers ME, Johnson SJ, Wadehra V. How predictive is a cervical smear suggesting glandular neoplasia? Cytopathology 2002;13:83-91.
5. Kirwan JM, Herrington CS, Smith PA, Turnbull LS, Herod JJ. A retrospective clinical audit of cervical smears reported as 'glandular neoplasia'. Cytopathology 2004;15:188-94.
6. Segal A, Frost FA, Miranda A, Fletcher C, Sterrett GF. Predictive value of diagnoses of endocervical glandular abnormalities in cervical smears. Pathology 2003;35:198-203.
7. Ozkan F, Ramzy I, Mody DR. Glandular lesions of the cervix on thin-layer Pap tests. Validity of cytologic criteria used in identifying significant lesions. Acta Cytol 2004;48:372-9.
8. Wood MD, Horst JA, Bibbo M. Weeding atypical glandular cell look-alikes from the true atypical lesions in liquid-based Pap tests: A review. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:12-17.
9. Simsir A, Hwang S, Cangiarella J, et al. Glandular cell atypia on Papanicolaou smears: Interobserver variability in the diagnosis and prediction of cell of origin. Cancer 2003;99:323-30.
10. Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol 1999;43:81-5.
11. Tavassoli FA, Deville P. Tumours of the breast and female genital organs. World Health Organization classification of tumours 2003. Lyon: IARC Press, 2003.
12. Alves VAF, Castelo A, Longatto Filho A, et al. Performance of the DNA-Citoliq liquid-based cytology system compared with conventional smears. Cytopathology 2006;17:86-93.
13. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R; for the Forum Group Members and the Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The Bethesda 2001 System: Terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287:2114-19.
14. Solomon D, Nayar R, editors, The Bethesda system for reposting cervical cytology. Definitions, criteria and explanatory notes. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2004.
15. Young NA, Moriarty AT, Walsh MK, Wang E, Wilbur DC; for the College of American Pathologists. The potential for failure in gynecologic regulatory proficiency testing with current slide validation criteria: Results from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison in Gynecologic Cytology Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:1114-18.
16. Mattosinho de Castro Ferraz MG, Focchi J, Stávale JN, Nicolau SM, Rodrigues de Lima G, Baracat EC. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance - Cytological predictive value for glandular involvement in high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Acta Cytol 2003;47:154-8.
17. Renshaw AA. Comparing methods to measure error in gynecologic cytology and surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:626-9.
18. Utagawa ML, di Loreto C, de Freitas C, et al. Pero Vaz de Caminha: An-interchange program for quality control between Brazil and Portugal. Acta Cytol 2006;50:303-8.
19. Ronnett BM, Manos M, Ransley JE, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): Cytopathologic features, histopathologic results, and human papillomavirus DNA detection. Hum Pathol 1999;30:816-25.
20. Oliveira E, Derchain S, Rabelo-Santos S, et al. Detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) by hybrid capture II in women referred due to atypical glandular cells in the primary screening. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;31:19-22.
21. Longatto Filho A, Albergaria A, Paredes J, Moreira MA, Milanezi F, Schmitt FC. P-cadherin expression in glandular lesions of the uterine cervix detected by liquid-based cytology. Cytopathology 2005;16:88-93.