Objective: The cytomorphological criteria of malignant endometrial lesions in cervical samples are less well described than those of cervical lesions. We wished to investigate if there were features in SurePath™ liquid-based cytology samples that would facilitate more accurate differentiation between benign and malignant endometrial cells. Study Design: This was a two-phase study, with a review of all SurePath™ samples reported as endometrial adenocarcinoma (n = 42) evaluating 12 cytological features in the first phase. In phase 2 (test set), all initial cases plus an additional 83 cases were reviewed using these 12 cytological features to predict the outcome. Results: Out of 12 cytological features evaluated in phase 1 (training set), nuclear chromatin pattern, apoptotic bodies and tingible body macrophages were found to be the most significant features determining malignant histological outcome. These 12 cytological features were re-evaluated in phase 2 (n = 125). Of 125 cases, 54 had a benign and 71 had a malignant or premalignant histological outcome, with a positive predictive value of 56.8%. Conclusion: Granular nuclear chromatin, tingible body macrophages and apoptosis in the background are the most significant factors in determining whether endometrial cells present in cervical samples represent malignancy or are benign. Using these features, relatively accurate predictions of endometrial pathology can be made.

Keywords:
Atypical glandular cells, Endometrial adenocarcinoma, Glandular neoplasia, Pap smear, SurePath™ cervical samples
1.
Vuopala S: Diagnostic accuracy and clinical applicability of cytological and histological methods for investigating endometrial carcinoma. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1977;70:1-72.
2.
Patel C, Ullal A, Roberts M, Brady J, Birch P, Bulmer JN, Wadehra V: Endometrial carcinoma detected with SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology: comparison with conventional cytology. Cytopathology 2009;20:380-387.
3.
Cancer Research UK: Uterine Cancer Incidence Statistics. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/uterus/incidence.
4.
Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Hossein-Saboorian M, Iliya F: Thin-Prep Pap Test™. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol 1999;43:81-85.
5.
Burnley C, Dudding N, Parker M, Parsons P, Whitaker CJ, Young W: Glandular neoplasia and borderline endocervical reporting rates before and after conversion to the SurePath™ liquid-based cytology (LBC) system. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:869-874.
6.
Struthers CA, Dziura B: Comparison of ThinPrep Pap with the conventional Pap in the detection of glandular abnormalities (abstract). Acta Cytol 1999;43:902.
7.
Thrall M, Kjeldahl K, Gulbahce HE, Pambuccian SE: Liquid-based Papanicolaou test (SurePath) interpretations before histologic diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasias and carcinomas: study of 272 cases, classified by the 2001 Bethesda system. Cancer 2007;111:217-223.
8.
Ashfaq R, Sharma S, Dulley T, Saboorian MH, Siddiqui MT, Warner C: Clinical relevance of benign endometrial cells in postmenopausal women. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:235-238.
9.
Cherkis RC, Patten SF Jr, Andrews TJ, Dickinson JC, Patten FW: Significance of normal endometrial cells detected by cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:242-244.
10.
DuBeshter B, Warshol DP, Angel C, Dvoretsky PM, Lin JY, Raubertas RF: Endometrial carcinoma: the relevance of cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:458-462.
11.
Yancey M, Magelssen D, Demaurez A, Lee RB: Classification of endometrial cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:1000-1005.
12.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al: The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-2119.
13.
Denton KJ, Herbert A, Turnbull LS, Waddell C, Desai MS, Rana DN, Dudding N, Smith JH; British Society of Clinical Cytology: The revised BSCC terminology for abnormal cervical cytology. Cytopathology 2008;19:137-157.
14.
Lozowski MS, Mishriki Y, Solitare GB: Factors determining the degree of endometrial exfoliation and their diagnostic implications in endometrial adenocarcinoma. Acta Cytol 1986;30:623-627.
15.
Gu M, Shi W, Barakat RR, Thaler HT, Saigo PE: Pap smears in women with endometrial carcinoma. Acta Cytol 2001;45:555-560.
16.
Selvaggi SM: Background features of endometrial carcinoma on ThinPrep® cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2005;33:162-165.
17.
Zhou J, Tomashefski JF, Khiyami A: ThinPrep Pap tests in patients with endometrial cancer: a histo-cytological correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:448-453.
18.
Reagan JW, Ng AB: The cells of uterine adenocarcinoma; in Wied GL (ed): Monogr Clin Cytol, ed 2. Basel, Karger, 1973, vol 1, pp 88-113.
19.
Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM: Detection of endometrial adenocarcinoma with the ThinPrep Pap test. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:260-265.
20.
Tiam RN, Theodosiou M, Wadehra V: Endometrial cells in cervical smears: cytological features associated with clinically significant endometrial pathology (abstract). Cytopathology 2007;18(suppl 1):13-18.
21.
Norimatsu Y, Kouda H, Kobayashi TK, Shimizu K, Yanoh K, Tsukayama C, Miyake Y, Ohno E: Utility of liquid-based cytology in endometrial pathology: diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma. Cytopathology 2009;20:395-402.
22.
Greenspan DL, Cardillo M, Davey DD, Heller DS, Moriarty AT: Endometrial cells in cervical cytology: review of cytological features and clinical assessment. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2006;10:111-122.
23.
Skaznik-Wikiel ME, Ueda SM, Frasure HE, Rose PG, Fleury A, Grumbine FC, Fader AN: Abnormal cervical cytology in the diagnosis of uterine papillary serous carcinoma: earlier detection of a poor prognostic cancer subtype? Acta Cytol 2011;55:255-260.
24.
Thiryayi SA, Narine N, Rana DN: Endometrial adenocarcinoma mimicking cervical glandular neoplasia in liquid-based cervical cytology samples. Cytopathology 2013;24:138-140.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.