Comparison of diagnostic cytomorphology of atypical squamous cells in liquid-based preparations and conventional smears

Korean Journal of Pathology

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 365-369

  Lee, Jung Dal ^a,b   Oh, Young Ha ^a   Lee, Seong Ok ^b   Kim, Jong Yull ^c  

^a Hanyang University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Seoul Song Do Hospital   (South Korea)

^c Cell and Tech Bio Corporation   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Atypical squamous cells; Conventional smear; Cytomorphologic comparison; Liquid based preparation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867891470     PISSN: 17381843     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2012.46.4.365     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA 1989; 262: 931-4.
2. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287: 2114-9.
3. Ettler HC, Joseph MG, Downing PA, Suskin NG, Wright VC. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a cytohistological study in a colposcopy clinic. Diagn Cytopathol 1999; 21: 211-6.
4. Kim HS, Kim BM, Kim YJ, Kim HS. Qualification of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: "ASCUS, R/O HSIL". Cytologic features and histologic correlation. Korean J Cytopathol 2002; 13: 14-20.
5. Lerma E, Quintana MJ, Quilez M, et al. Effectiveness of liquid-based cytology and papanicolaou tests in a low risk population. Acta Cytol 2007; 51: 399-406.
6. Jeon YK, Kim OR, Park KW, Kang SB, Park IA. Liquid-based cytology using MonoPrep 2(TM) system in cervicovaginal cytology: comparative study with conventional pap smear and histology. Korean J Cytopathol 2004; 15: 33-9.
7. Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 90: 137-44.
8. Williams ML, Rimm DL, Pedigo MA, Frable WJ. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: correlative histologic and follow-up studies from an academic medical center. Diagn Cytopathol 1997; 16: 1-7.
9. Bishop JW, Kaufman RH, Taylor DA. Multicenter comparison of manual and automated screening of AutoCyte gynecologic preparations. Acta Cytol 1999; 43: 34-8.
10. Baker JJ. Conventional and liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: a comparison study with clinical and histologic follow-up. Diagn Cytopathol 2002; 27: 185-8.
11. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol 1994; 11: 390-6.
12. Stoler MH, Schiffman M Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001; 285: 1500-5.
13. Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Franco E, Arseneau J, Richart RM, Wright TC. Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs. ThinPrep smears: a paired comparison study on cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 1136-42.
14. Alli PM, Ali SZ. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: rule out high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: cytopathologic characteristics and clinical correlates. Diagn Cytopathol 2003; 28: 308-12.
15. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74.
16. Lousuebsakul V, Knutsen SM, Gram IT, Akin MR. Clinical impact of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a cytohistologic comparison. Acta Cytol 2000; 44: 23-30.
17. Gatscha RM, Abadi M, Babore S, Chhieng D, Miller MJ, Saigo PE. Smears diagnosed as ASCUS: interobserver variation and follow-up. Diagn Cytopathol 2001; 25: 138-40.
18. Morin C, Bairati I, Bouchard C, et al. Cytologic predictors of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with an ASCUS Pap smear. Acta Cytol 2000; 44: 576-86.
19. Lee KC, Jung CK, Lee A, et al. A comparison of Surepath(TM) liquid-based smear with a conventional smear for cervicovaginal cytology with reference to a histological diagnosis. Korean J Cytopathol 2007; 18: 20-8.
20. Joste NE, Crum CP, Cibas ES. Cytologic/histologic correlation for quality control in cervicovaginal cytology: experience with 1,582 paired cases. Am J Clin Pathol 1995; 103: 32-4.
21. Crum CP, Genest DR, Krane JF, et al. Subclassifying atypical squamous cells in Thin-Prep cervical cytology correlates with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA. Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112: 384-90.
22. Stoler MH. Advances in cervical screening technology. Mod Pathol 2000; 13: 275-84.
23. Park J, Jung EH, Kim C, Choi YH. Direct-to-vial comparison of a new liquid-based cytology system, liqui-PREP versus the conventional pap smear. Diagn Cytopathol 2007; 35: 488-92.
24. Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M, et al. The false negative rate in cervical cytology: comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 81-9.
25. Boman F, Farré I, Farine MO, et al. Why we prefer the thin layer technique to conventional Pap smears. A double-blind study of 473 specimens. Clin Exp Pathol 1999; 47: 81-7.
26. Dvorak KA, Finnemore M, Maksem JA. Histology correlation with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology diagnoses: an argument to ensure ASCUS follow-up that is as aggressive as that for LSIL. Diagn Cytopathol 1999; 21: 292-5.