Objective: We evaluated the clinical performance of liquid-based endometrial cytology (SurePath™) for detecting endometrial malignancies by comparison with the performance of suction endometrial tissue biopsy. Study Design: From November 2011 to May 2013, we consecutively collected 1,118 liquid-based endometrial cytology specimens and 674 suction endometrial tissue biopsy specimens. Results: The rate of nonpositive final histology in nonpositive liquid-based endometrial cytology (98.2%) was higher than the rate of nonpositive final histology in nonpositive suction endometrial tissue biopsy (97.0%). None of the clinical performance values of liquid-based endometrial cytology for detecting the endometrial malignancies were statistically inferior to those of the suction endometrial tissue biopsy. When the positivity threshold was more than “atypical endometrial cells of undetermined significance,” the rate of positive liquid-based endometrial cytology from cases with a positive final histology (84.5%) was higher than the rate of positive suction endometrial tissue biopsy from cases with a positive final histology (69.8%). However, there were still no significant differences among all the performance values. Conclusions: Our liquid-based endometrial cytology would be more appropriate in various clinical situations as the initial detection tool for endometrial malignancies, rather than suction endometrial tissue biopsy. In addition, it could be used in screening for endometrial malignancies on a broader scale.

Keywords:
Intrauterine sampling, SurePath™, Comparative study, Endometrial suction tissue biopsy, Liquid-based endometrial cytology
1.
Center for Cancer Control and Information Services: Vital Statistics Japan. Tokyo, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2015.
2.
Yanoh K, Norimatsu Y, Munakata S, Yamamoto T, Nakamura Y, Murata T, Kobayashi TK, Hirai Y: Evaluation of endometrial cytology prepared with the Becton Dickinson SurePath™ method: a pilot study by the Osaki Study Group. Acta Cytol 2014;58:153-161.
3.
Norimatsu Y, Sakamoto S, Ohsaki H, Ozaki S, Yokoyama T, Shimizu K, Yanoh K, Akiyama M, Bamba M, Kobayashi TK: Cytologic features of the endometrial adenocarcinoma: comparison of ThinPrep and BD SurePath preparations. Diagn Cytopathol 2013;41:673-681.
4.
Yanoh K, Hirai Y, Sakamoto A, Aoki D, Moriya T, Hiura M, Yamawaki T, Shimizu K, Nakayama H, Sasaki H, Tabata T, Ueda M, Udagawa Y, Norimatsu Y: New terminology for intrauterine endometrial samples: a group study by the Japanese Society of Clinical Cytology. Acta Cytol 2012;56:233-241.
5.
Demirkiran F, Yavuz E, Erenel H, Bese T, Arvas M, Saniohlu C: Which is the best technique for endometrial sampling? Aspiration (pipelle) versus dilatation and curettage (D&C). Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:1277-1282.
6.
Barut A, Barut F, Arikan I, Harma M, Harma MI, Ozmen BU: Comparison of the histopathological diagnoses of preoperative dilatation and curettage and hysterectomy specimens. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2012;38:16-22.
7.
Kazandi M, Okmen F, Ergenoglu AM, Yeniel AO, Zeybek B, Zekioglu O, Ozdemir N: Comparison of the success of histopathological diagnosis with dilatation-curettage and Pipelle endometrial sampling. J Obstet Gynaecol 2012;32:790-794.
8.
Lee DO, Jung MH, Kim HY: Prospective comparison of biopsy results from curettage and hysteroscopy in postmenopausal uterine bleeding. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2011;37:1423-1426.
9.
Remondi C, Sesti F, Bonanno E, Pietropolli A, Piccione E: Diagnostic accuracy of liquid-based endometrial cytology in the evaluation of endometrial pathology in postmenopausal women. Cytopathology 2013;24:365-371.
10.
Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Mesher D, Cadman L, Austin J, Perryman K, Ho L, Terry G, Sasieni P, Dina R, Soutter WP: Long-term follow-up of cervical abnormalities among women screened by HPV testing and cytology - results from the Hammersmith study. Int J Cancer 2008;122:2294-2300.
11.
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.
12.
Norimatsu Y, Shimizu K, Kobayashi TK, Moriya T, Kaku T, Tsukayama C, Miyake Y, Ohno E: Endometrial glandular and stromal breakdown, part 2: cytomorphology of papillary metaplastic changes. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:665-669.
13.
Norimatsu Y, Yuminamochi T, Shigematsu Y, Yanoh K, Ikemoto R, Masuno H, Murakami M, Kobayashi TK: Endometrial glandular and stromal breakdown, part 3: cytomorphology of “condensed cluster of stromal cells.” Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:891-896.
14.
Norimatsu Y, Kawai M, Kamimori A, Yuminamochi T, Ohsaki H, Yanoh K, Kawanishi N, Kobayashi TK: Endometrial glandular and stromal breakdown, part 4: cytomorphology of “condensed cluster of stromal cells including a light green body.” Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:204-209.
15.
Norimatsu Y, Sakamoto S, Ohsaki H, Ozaki S, Yokoyama T, Shimizu K, Kobayashi TK: Comparison of cytologic features in three methods of LBC in the endometrial carcinoma (in Japanese). Jpn J Med Tech 2013;64:381-388.
16.
Shimizu K, Norimatsu Y, Kobayashi TK, Ogura S, Miyake Y, Ohno E, Sakurai T, Moriya T, Sakurai M: Endometrial glandular and stromal breakdown, part 1: cytomorphological appearance. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:609-613.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
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.