4.1 Article

Unsatisfactory exfoliative anal cytology samples, 15-year experience with histologic, cytologic, and molecular follow-up

期刊

DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 117-121

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dc.23858

关键词

Anal cancer; anal cytology; anal Pap; HR-HPV DNA; unsatisfactory; nondiagnostic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe incidence of anal carcinoma has risen in recent decades. Exfoliative cytology screening of selected high risk patients is performed in many centers. Unsatisfactory cytology results are frustrating to patients, clinicians, and laboratorians. The aim of this study is to ascertain outcomes of patients with non-diagnostic anal cytology. MethodsA retrospective review of anal cytology testing performed at the Cleveland Clinic between 01/01/2001 and 12/31/2015 was performed. All cases were received as liquid-based samples and processed as ThinPreps (Hologic, Marlborough, MA). Co-testing for HR-HPV DNA was performed using Hybrid Capture 2 (R) (Qiagen, Germantown, MD) in the majority of patients. ResultsOf 1,276 ThinPrep anal cytology samples, 130 (10%) were deemed unsatisfactory. 77% of patients were HIV positive. 85% were males. Of the unsatisfactory cases, 116 (89%) were co-tested for HR-HPV DNA. Of those, 40 patients (34%) had a simultaneous positive HR-HPV DNA. Adequate follow up cytology within a one year and a two year period revealed that 18/130 (14%) and 26/130 (20%) of patients had ASC or SIL respectively. Histologic follow-up within one and two years showed 3 patients (2%) and 8 patients (6%) with HSIL or worse. ConclusionsHigh risk patients with unsatisfactory anal cytology are not negative. At least one-third proved to be concomitantly HR-HPV DNA positive with one-fifth showing subsequent cytologic squamous abnormalities and with more than 5% being diagnosed with a high grade intraepithelial lesion within two years. Prompt repeat cytology and/or HR-HPV DNA is recommended for high risk patients with non-diagnostic cytology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据