False-negative interpretation of adenocarcinoma in situ in the college of American pathologists gynecologic PAP Education Program

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 141, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 666-670

  Zhao, Chengquan ^a   Crothers, Barbara A ^b   Laura Tabatabai, Z ^c   Li, Zaibo ^d   Ghofrani, Mohiedean ^e   Souers, Rhona J ^f   Husain, Mujtaba ^g   Fan, Fang ^h   Shen, Rulong ^d   Ocal, Idris Tolgay ⁱ   Booth, Christine N ^j   Goodrich, Kelly ^f   Russell, Donna ^k   Davey, Diane D ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e College of American Pathologists ^*  (United States)

^f North Carolina   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

ⁱ MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^j LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA IN SITU; ATROPHIC VAGINITIS; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; EDUCATION; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATHOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNITED STATES;

ADENOCARCINOMA IN SITU; AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; ATROPHIC VAGINITIS; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PATHOLOGY, MOLECULAR; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85018264590     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0234-CP     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Wang SS, Sherman ME, Hildesheim A, et al. Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976-2000. Cancer. 2004;100(5):1035-1044.
2. Dunton CJ. Management of atypical glandular cells and adenocarcinoma in situ. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2008;35(4):623-632.
3. Lee KR, Flynn CE. Early invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Cancer. 2000;89(5):1048-1055.
4. Plaxe SC, Saltzstein SL. Estimation of the duration of the preclinical phase of cervical adenocarcinoma suggests that there is ample opportunity for screening. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;75(1):55-61.
5. Krane JF, Granter SR, Trask CE, Hogan CL, Lee KR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases. Cancer. 2001;93(1):8-15.
6. Lee KR, Minter LJ, Granter SR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: a study of 34 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1997;107(1):30-35.
7. Muntz HG, Bell DA, Lage JM, Goff BA, Feldman S, Rice LW. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80(6):935-939.
8. Noda K, Kimura K, Ikeda M, Teshima K. Studies on the histogenesis of cervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1983;1(4):336-346.
9. Christopherson WM, Nealon N, Gray LA. Noninvasive precursor lesions of adenocarcinoma and mixed adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Cancer. 1979;44(3):975-983.
10. Renshaw AA, Mody DR, Lozano RL, et al. Detection of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix in Papanicolaou tests: comparison of diagnostic accuracy with other high-grade lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128(2):153-157.
11. Shin CH, Schorge JO, Lee KR, Sheets EE. Cytologic and biopsy findings leading to conization in adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(2):271-276.
12. Mitchell H, Hocking J, Saville M. Cervical cytology screening history of women diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: a case-control study. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):595-600.
13. Geier CS, Wilson M, Creasman W. Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(2):64-69.
14. Schnatz PF, Guile M, O'Sullivan DM, Sorosky JI. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(3):701-708.
15. 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 womens hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(3):383-389.
16. Chin AB, Bristow RE, Korst LM, Walts A, Lagasse LD. The significance of atypical glandular cells on routine cervical cytologic testing in a community-based population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(6):1278-1282.
17. Kim TJ, Kim HS, Park CT, et al. Clinical evaluation of follow-up methods and results of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS) detected on cervicovaginal pap smears. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;73(2):292-298.
18. Zhao C, Florea A, Austin RM. Clinical utility of adjunctive high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing in women with Papanicolaou test findings of atypical glandular cells. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(1):103-108.
19. Pradhan D, Li Z, Ocque R, Patadji S, Zhao C. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells in Pap tests: an analysis of more than 3000 cases at a large academic women's center. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124(8):589-595.
20. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK. Comparative sensitivities of ThinPrep and Papanicolaou smear for adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and combined AIS/high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL): comparison with HSIL. Cancer. 2007;111(6):482-486.
21. Nielsen ML. Cytopathology interlaboratory improvement programs of the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program (CAP LAP) and Performance Improvement Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology (CAP PAP). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121(3):256-259.
22. Barroilhet L, Van Hanegem L, Bernstein M, Feldman S. Potential effects of updated pap test screening guidelines and adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):759-764.
23. Renshaw AA, Wang E, Mody DR, Wilbur DC, Davey DD, Colgan TJ. Measuring the significance of field validation in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology: how good are the experts? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129(5):609-613.
24. Renshaw AA, Walsh MK, Blond B, Moriarty AT, Mody DR, Colgan TJ. Robustness of validation criteria in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(8):1119-1122.
25. Bentz JS, Hughes JH, Fatheree LA, Schwartz MR, Souers RJ, Wilbur DC; for the Cytopathology Resource Committee, College of American Pathologists. Summary of the 2006 College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Proficiency Testing Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(5):788-794.
26. Zhao C, Crothers BA, Ghofrani M, et al. Misinterpretation rates of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic PAP Education and PAP Proficiency Test Program [published online ahead of print August 23, 2016]. Arch Pathol Lab Med. doi:10.5858/arpa.2015-0446-CP.
27. Miller RA, Mody DR, Tams KC, Thrall MJ. Glandular lesions of the cervix in clinical practice: a cytology, histology, and human papillomavirus correlation study from 2 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139(11):1431-1436.