4.2 Review

Glandular Cell Abnormalities on SurePath Preparations: A Retrospective Review with Cytology-Histology Correlations

Journal

ACTA CYTOLOGICA
Volume 62, Issue 5-6, Pages 423-429

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000493000

Keywords

Atypical glandular cells; SurePath; Cervical screening; Correlation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Detecting glandular lesions is challenging by all Pap test methodologies. As the availability of data on identifying glandular abnormalities by SurePath is scarce, we investigated the detection rates and the correlation with histology follow-up. Study Design: A total of 105,927 cases (SurePath and conventional) were searched for the diagnosis of atypical glandular cells or higher glandular abnormalities (AGC+) with the corresponding histologic diagnosis. The associations between the Pap test methods and diagnostic categories were assessed by chi(2) test. Results: Overall, 0.32% of SurePath (159/49,375) and 0.29% of conventional (164/56,552) cases showed AGC+ (p = 0.38). Histology confirmed significant abnormalities in 42 versus 53.5% of the cases, respectively (p = 0.064); 72.7% (SurePath) versus 65.2% (conventional) of these were glandular in nature (p = 0.37). The diagnosis of neoplasia (favored or definitive) showed malignancy on follow-up in 100% of SurePath cases (12/12). In contrast, 82.1% of these conventional cases disclosed premalignant or malignant lesions by histology (p = 0.12). Conclusions: AGC+ cases showed higher prevalence on SurePath preparations. Conventional cases had more abnormalities on follow-up, while glandular lesions represented a higher proportion of abnormal histologies following SurePath AGC+s. The positive predictive value of favored or definite neoplasia was higher in SurePath cases. Overall, these differences were not statistically significant. (C) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available