Objective: Since cytology is the examination utilized for the screening of cervical cancer, it is important to determine its correlation with histologic examination, the gold standard in the diagnosis of cervical disease. Study Design: A retrospective evaluation was made of 431 patients who presented with colposcopic indication for cervical biopsy between 2003 and 2007. Results: In 90.8% (289/318) of the patients, cytology showing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) was confirmed as CIN in the histology of the cervix, while 62.8% (71/113) of patients with normal cytology had a confirmation of a normal histology (ĸ = 0.558). Conclusion: Cytology demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 87.3 and 71.0%, respectively. The agreement between cervical cytology and histology, considering the presence of CIN, was moderate. Correlations between accuracy and errors of cytology are discussed with therapeutic emphasis.

Behtash N, Mehrdad N: Cervical cancer: screening and prevention. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2006;7:683–686.
Östor AG: Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12:186–192.
Zur Hausen H: Condylomata acuminata and human genital cancer. Cancer Res 1976;36:794.
Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Muñoz N, et al: The causal relation between human papilomavírus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol 2002;55:244–265.
Smith JH: Bethesda 2001. Cytopathology 2002;13:4–10.
Ibrahim SN, Krigman HR, Coogan AC, et al: Prospective correlation of cervicovaginal cytologic and histologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;106:319–324.
Tritz DM, Weeks JA, Spires SE, et al: Etiologies for non-correlating cervical cytologies and biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:594–597.
Bewtra C, Pathan M, Hashish H: Abnormal Pap smears with negative follow-up biopsies: improving cytohistological correlations. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;29:200–202.
Nooh A, Babburi P, Howell R: Achieving quality assurance standards in colposcopy practice: a teaching hospital experience. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;47:61–64.
Lindeque BG: Management of cervical premalignant lesions. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2005;19:545–561.
Silverberg E, Boring CC, Squires TS: Cancer statistics, 1990. CA Cancer J Clin 1990;40:9–26.
Koss LG: Cytology: accuracy of diagnosis. Cancer 1989;64(suppl 1):249–252.
Vooijs GP, Elias A, van der Graaf Y, Poelen-van de Berg M: The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989;30:251–257.
Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M, Fox W, Heinzerling RH, Geyer JW, Knesel EA: The false negative rate in cervical cytology: comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol 1996;40:81–89.
Abulafia O, Sherer DM: Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the AutoPap 300 QC System. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1999;54:469–476.
Mount S, Harmon M, Eltabbakh G, Uyar D, Leiman G: False positive diagnosis in conventional and liquid-based cervical specimens. Acta Cytol 2004;48:363–371.
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;90:137–144.
Soost HJ, Lange HJ, Lehmacher W, Ruffing-Kullmann B: The validation of cervical cytology: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Acta Cytol 1992;35:8–14.
Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, Le Galès C, Cartier I, Molinié V, Labbé S, Vacher-Lavenu MC, Vielh P: Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ 2003;326:733–736.
Errington CA, Roberts M, Tindle P, Michael E, Bulmer JN, Wadehra V: Colposcopic management of high-grade referral smears: a retrospective audit supporting ‘see and treat’? Cytopathology 2006;17:339–347.
Jostle 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;103:32–34.
Jones BA, Novis DA: Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22,439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120:523–531.
Joste NE, Wolz M, Pai RK, Lathrop SL: Noncorrelating Pap tests and cervical biopsies: histologic predictors of subsequent correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;32:310–314.
Petry KU, Böhmer G, Iftner T, Davies P, Brummer O, Kühnle H: Factors associated with an increased risk of prevalent and incident grade III cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer among women with Papanicolaou tests classified as grades I or II cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:28–34.
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;285:1500–1505.
Milne DS, Wadehra V, Mennim D, Wagstaff TI: A prospective follow up study of women with colposcopically unconfirmed positive cervical smears. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1999;106:38–41.
Hellberg D, Nilsson S: 20-year experience of follow-up of the abnormal smear with colposcopy and histology and treatment by conization or cryosurgery. Gynecol Oncol 1990;38:166–169.
Cioc AM, Julius CJ, Proca DM, Tranovich VL, Keyhani-Rofagha S: Cervical biopsy/cytology correlation data can be collected prospectively and shared clinically. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:49–52.
Jordan J, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Schenck U, Baldauf JJ, Da Silva D, Anttila A, Nieminen P, Prendiville W: European guidelines for clinical management of abnormal cervical cytology, part 2. Cytopathology 2009;20:5–16.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.