Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of endometrial cytology obtained by intrauterine sample using a descriptive reporting format for endometrial cytological diagnosis. Study Design: 10,152 consecutive endometrial scrapings obtained in 13 different Japanese hospitals were analyzed. Cytological results were classified as ‘negative for malignancy’, ‘atypical endometrial cells’ (ATEC), ‘endometrial hyperplasia’, ‘atypical endometrial hyperplasia’ or ‘malignant tumor’. ATEC was subclassified as ‘ATEC, of undetermined significance’ (ATEC-US) and ‘ATEC, cannot exclude atypical endometrial hyperplasia or more’ (ATEC-A). Cytological results were compared with the histological diagnosis as a gold standard. When the cytological result was ‘negative for malignancy’ and there was no subsequent histological examination, the case was considered a true negative when the endometrium was assessed as normal on transvaginal ultrasonography and there was no abnormal uterine bleeding. Results: 1,083 cases in which histology was not performed, 557 cases of ‘unsatisfactory specimen’ and 76 cases of ATEC-US were excluded. In the remaining 8,436 cases, the sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for detecting atypical endometrial hyperplasia or malignant tumors were 79.0 and 99.7, 92.9 and 98.9%, respectively. Conclusion: The current diagnostic standards for endometrial cytology in Japan were established. Specificity is satisfactory for excluding cancer or precancerous diseases.

Keywords:
Sensitivity, Endometrial cytology, Intrauterine sampling, Descriptive reporting format, Specificity, Group study
1.
Kobayashi TK, Norimatsu Y, Buccoliero AM: Cytology of the body of the uterus; in Gray W, Kocjan G (eds): Diagnostic Cytopathology, ed 3. London, Churchill Livingstone, 2010, pp 689–719.
2.
Yanoh K, Norimatsu Y, Hirai Y, Takeshima N, Kamimori A, Nakamura Y, Shimizu K, Kobayashi TK, Murata T, Shiraishi T: New diagnostic reporting format for endometrial cytology based on cytoarchitectural criteria. Cytopathology 2009;20:388–394.
3.
Goldstein SR: The role of transvaginal ultrasound or endometrial biopsy in the evaluation of the menopausal endometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:5–11.
4.
Pitman MB, Cibas ES, Powers CN, Renshaw AA, Frable WJ: Reducing or eliminating use of the category of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance decreases the diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou smear. Cancer 2002;96:128–134.
5.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D, Prey M, Raab S, Sherman M, Wilbur D, Wright T Jr, Young N: The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114–2119.
6.
Tsuda H, Kawabata M, Yamamoto K, Inoue T, Umesaki N: Prospective study to compare endometrial cytology and transvaginal ultrasonography for identification of endometrial malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 1997;65:383–386.
7.
Buccoliero AM, Gheri CF, Castiglione F, Gabbini F, Barbetti A, Fambrini M, Bargelli G, Pappalardo S, Taddei A, Boddi V, Scarselli GF, Marchinni M, Taddei GL: Liquid-based endometrial cytology: cyto-histological correlation in a population of 917 women. Cytopathology 2007;18:241–249.
8.
Kipp BR, Medeiros F, Campion MB, Distad TJ, Peterson LM, Keeney GL, Halling KC, Clayton AC: Direct uterine sampling with the Tao brush sampler using a liquid-based preparation method for the detection of endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer 2008;114:228–235.
9.
Zhou J, Tomashefski J, Khiyami A: Diagnostic value of the thin-layer, liquid-based Pap test in endometrial cancer: a retrospective study with emphasis on cytomorphologic features. Acta Cytol 2007;51:735–741.
10.
Maksem JA, Meiers I, Robboy SJ: A primer of endometrial cytology with histological correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:817–844.
11.
Norimatsu Y, Shimizu K, Kobayashi TK, Moriya T, Tsukayama C, Miyake Y, Ohno E: Cellular features of endometrial hyperplasia and well differentiated adenocarcinoma using the Endocyte sampler: diagnostic criteria based on the cytoarchitecture of tissue fragments. Cancer 2006;108:77–85.
12.
Shimizu K, Norimatsu Y, Kobayashi TK, Ogura S, Miyake Y, Ohno E, Sakurai T, Moriya T, Sakurai M: Endometrial glandular and stromal breakdown. I. Cytomorphological appearance. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:609–613.
13.
Norimatsu Y, Shimizu K, Kobayashi TK, Moriya T, Kaku T, Tsugayama C, Miyake Y, Ohno E: Endometrial glandular and stromal breakdown. II. Cytomorphology of papillary metaplastic changes. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:665–669.
14.
Norimatsu Y, Yuminamochi T, Shigematsu Y, Yanoh K, Ikemoto R, Masuno M, Murakami M, Kobayashi TK: Endometrial glandular and stromal breakdown. III. Cytomorphology of ‘condensed cluster of stromal cells’. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:891–896.
15.
Kobayashi H, Otsuki Y, Simizu S, Yamada M, Mukai R, Sawaki Y, Nakayama S, Torii Y: Cytological criteria of endometrial lesions with emphasis on stromal and epithelial cell clusters: result of 8 years of experience with intrauterine sampling. Cytopathology 2008;19:19–27.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
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.