Objective: To investigate the feasibility of the technique of cell blocks (CBs) from residual fluids of Papanicolaou (Pap) smears diagnosed as low-grade abnormalities in the detection of high-grade lesions on biopsies. Study Design: In the present pilot study, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of 70 CBs from liquid-based cervicovaginal smears of women with atypical squamous cells (ASCs) of undetermined significance (ASCUS; n = 39), ASCs that cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H; n = 17) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs; n = 14) in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) type 2+ lesions. Results: Of the 70 CBs, 22 were diagnosed as negative, 27 as CIN1 and 21 as CIN2+. The sensitivity and specificity of CB preparation for the diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions were 50 and 100%, respectively, in ASCUS, 92 and 100%, respectively, in ASC-H, 100 and 100%, respectively, in LSILs. Conclusions: Our study confirms that CB preparation is a simple and reproducible technique with a good specificity that could be added advantageously to Pap smears to detect CIN2+ lesions in women with ASCs and LSILs.

Keywords:
Cervix, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, Cell block, Human papillomavirus
1.
Curado MP, Edwards B, Shin HR, et al: Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. IARC Scientific Publications No 160, vol IX. Lyon, IARC, 2007.
2.
Gupta S, Sodhani P: Why is high grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia underdiagnosed in a quarter of cases? Smear characteristics in discrepant cases. Ind J Cancer 2004;41:104–108.
3.
Keyhani-Rofagha S, Vesey-Shecket M: Diagnostic value, feasibility, and validity of preparing cell blocks from fluid-based gynecologic cytology specimens. Cancer 2002;96:204–209.
4.
Stoler MH, Schiffman M: Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001;285:1500–1505.
5.
Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R: Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:293–299.
6.
Castle PE, Solomon D, Schiffman M, et al: The relationship of community biopsy-diagnosed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) to the quality control pathology-reviewed diagnoses: an ALTS Report. Am J Clin Pathol 2007;127:805–815.
7.
Franceschi S, Denny L, Irwin KL, et al: Eurogin 2010 roadmap on cervical cancer prevention. Int J Cancer 2011;128:2765–2774.
8.
Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, et al: Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2006;119:1095–1101.
9.
Nathan NA, Narayan E, Smith MM, et al: Cell block cytology. Improved preparation and its efficacy in diagnostic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:599–606.
10.
Calabretto ML, Giol L, Sulfaro S: Diagnostic utility of cell block from bronchial washing in pulmonary neoplasms. Diagn Cytopathol 1996;15:191–192.
11.
Selvaggi SM: Diagnostic pitfalls of peritoneal washing cytology and the role of cell blocks in their diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:335–341.
12.
Sanchez N, Selvaggi SM: Utility of cell blocks in the diagnois of thyroid aspirates. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:89–92.
13.
Nassar A, Cohen C, Siddiqui MT: Utility of Millipore filter and cell block in thyroid needle aspirates: which method is superior? Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:34–38.
14.
Engohan-Aloghe C, Hottat N, Noël JC: Accuracy of lymph nodes cell block preparation according to ultrasound features in preoperative staging of breast cancer. Diagn Cytopathol 2010;38:5–8.
15.
Yeoh GPS, Chan KW: Cell block preparation on residual ThinPrep sample. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:427–431.
16.
Fabre M: Les techniques qui marchent en immunocytochime: comment utilise-t-on le milieu liquide ou lec cytoblocs. Ann Pathol 2007;27:1S110–1S112.
17.
Noël JC, Bucella D, Fayt I, et al: Androgen receptor expression in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2008;27:437–441.
18.
Dekker A, Bupp PA: Cytology of serous effusions. An investigation into the usefulness of cell blocks versus smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1978;70:855–860.
19.
Akpolat I, Smith DA, Ramzy I, et al: The utility of p16 INK4a and Ki-67 staining on cell blocks prepared from residual thin-layer cervicovaginal material. Cancer 2004;102:142–149.
20.
Kerstens HMJ, Robben JCM, Poddighe PJ, et al: AgarCyto: a novel cell-processing method for multiple moleclar diagnostic analyses of the uterine cervix. J Histochem Cytochem 2000;48:709–718.
21.
Diaz-Rosario L, Kabawat SE: Cell block preparation by inverted filter sedimentation is useful in the differential diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in ThinPrep specimens. Cancer 2000;90:265–272.
22.
Musso C, Silva-Santos MC, Pereira FEL: Cotton block method: one step method of cell block preparation after fine needle aspiration. Acta Cytol 2005;49:22–26.
23.
Richard K, Dziura B, Hornish A: Cell block preparation as a diagnostic technique complementary to fluid based monolayer cervicovaginal specimens. Acta Cytol 1999;43:69–73.
24.
Monsonego J, Hudgens MG, Zerat L, et al: Evaluation of oncogenic human papillomavirus RNA and DNA tests with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: the FASE study. Int J Cancer 2011;129:691–701.
25.
Owens CL, Moats DR, Burroughs FH, et al: ‘Low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion’ is a distinct cytologic category: histologic outcomes and HPV prevalence. Am J Clin Pathol 2007;128:398–403.
26.
Sherman ME, Solomon D, Schiffman M; ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study Group: Qualification of ASCUS. A comparison of equivocal LSIL and equivocal HSIL cervical cytology in the ASCUS LSIL Triage Study. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:386–394.
© 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.