Automated cell block system for atypical glandular cells of cervical cytology: Is it feasible?

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 122, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 5-7

  Zhao, Chengquan ^a   Li, Zaibo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ATYPICAL GLANDULAR CELL; AUTOMATION; CANCER CELL; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; ENDOMETRIUM CARCINOMA; ENDOMETRIUM CELL; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY DEVICE; NOTE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX ADENOCARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; METHODOLOGY; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

ADENOCARCINOMA; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS, GLANDULAR AND EPITHELIAL; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84894747155     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21368     Document Type: Note

References (20)

1. Wang S, Sherman M, Hildesheim A, Lacey J, Devesa S. Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976-2000. Cancer. 2004;100:1035-1044.
2. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119.
3. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA. 1989;262: 931-934.
4. Zhao C, Florea A, Onisko A, Austin RM. Histologic follow-up results in 662 patients with Pap test findings of atypical glandular cells: results from a large academic women's hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114:383-389.
5. Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:1224-1229.
6. Castle PE, Fetterman B, Poitras N, Lorey T, Shaber R, Kinney W. Relationship of atypical glandular cell cytology, age, and human papillomavirus detection to cervical and endometrial cancer risks. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(2 pt 1):243-248.
7. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al American Cancer Society; American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology; American Society for Clinical Pathology. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;137:516-542.
8. Chen L, Yang B. Assessment of reflex human papillomavirus DNA testing in patients with atypical endocervical cells on cervical cytology. Cancer. 2008;114:236-241.
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 (Cancer Cytopathol). 2003;99: 323-330.
10. 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;17:353-360.
11. Lee KR, Darragh TM, Joste NE, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): interobserver reproducibility in cervical smears and corresponding thin-layer preparations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:96-102.
12. Raab SS, Geisinger KR, Silverman JF, Thomas PA, Stanley MW. Interobserver variability of a Papanicolaou smear diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998;110:653-659.
13. Diaz-Rosario LA, Kabawat SE. Cell block preparation by inverted filter sedimentation is useful in the differential diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in ThinPrep specimens. Cancer. 2000;90:265-272.
14. Yang GC, Wan LS, Papellas J, Waisman J. Compact cell blocks. Use for body fluids, fine needle aspirations and endometrial brush biopsies. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:703-706.
15. Xing W, Hou AY, Fischer A, Owens CL, Jiang Z. The cellient automated cell block system is useful in the differential diagnosis of atypical glandular cells in Papanicolaou tests [published online ahead of print August 20, 2013]. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). doi: 10.1002/cncy.21343.
16. Zeferino LC, Rabelo-Santos SH, Villa LL, et al. Value of HPV-DNA test in women with cytological diagnosis of atypical glandular cells (AGC). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 159:160-164.
17. Zhao C, Florea A, Austin RM. Clinical utility of adjunctive highrisk human papillomavirus DNA testing in women with Papanicolaou test findings of atypical glandular cells. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:103-108.
18. Hecht SA, McCormack M. Comparison of three cell block techniques for detection of low frequency abnormal cells. Pathol Lab Med Int. 2013;5:1-7.
19. Akalin A, Lu D, Woda B, Moss L, Fischer A. Rapid cell blocks improve accuracy of breast FNAs beyond that provided by conventional cell blocks regardless of immediate adequacy evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008;36:523-529.
20. Istvanic S, Fischer AH, Banner BF, Eaton DM, Larkin AC, Khan A. Cell blocks of breast FNAs frequently allow diagnosis of invasion or histological classification of proliferative changes. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:263-269.