Objective: We aimed to assess potential associations between atypical squamous cell (ASC) subgroups: ASC-US (undetermined significance) and ASC-H (cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion), regarding cytomorphological features, high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, and histological outcomes in a sample of Brazilian women. Study Design: Cross-sectional study which evaluated 1,346 liquid-based cytologies between January 2010 and July 2016 with ASC results. ASC-US and ASC-H were analyzed for frequency, diagnostic criteria, and cytological findings and compared with HR-HPV tests and histological outcomes. Results: Enlarged nucleus was the most frequent ASC-US criterion, but alternative criteria were present in 20% of the total cases. No ASC-US criteria were associated with histological outcomes or HR-HPV positivity. Parakeratosis, corneal pearl, giant cells, and binucleation were strongly associated with ASC-US while hyperkeratosis was associated with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) or a superior outcome. HR-HPV was positive in 64.39% of ASC-US and 65.38% of ASC-H. HSIL or superior outcomes also occurred in 13.33% of ASC-US and 64.71% of ASC-H cases. Conclusion: Alternative criteria for ASC-US were relatively frequent. Reactive cellular changes suggestive of atypias were more abundant in ASC-US. Although ASC-H is associated with worse histological outcomes, no differences in HPV positivity were found in comparison to ASC-US.

Keywords:
Uterine cervical neoplasm, Atypical squamous cells of the cervix, Papanicolaou test, Human papillomavirus
1.
Jahic M, Jahic E: Diagnostic approach to patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance cytologic findings on cervix. Med Arch 2016; 70: 296–298.
2.
Waxman AG, Chelmow D, Darragh TM, Lawson H, Moscicki A-B: Revised terminology for cervical histopathology and its implications for management of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 1465–1471.
3.
Nayar R, Wilbur DC: The Pap test and Bethesda 2014. Cancer Cytopathol 2015; 123: 271–281.
4.
Selvaggi S: Clinical significance of atypical squamous cells cannot exclude high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with histologic correlation: a 9-year experience. Diagn Cytopathol 2013; 41: 943–946.
5.
Schiffman M, Vaughan L, Raine-Bennett TR, Castle PE, Katki HA, Gage JC, Fetterman B, Befano B, Wentzensen N: A study of HPV typing for the management of HPV-positive ASC-US cervical cytologic results. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 138: 573–578.
6.
Barcelos A, Michelin M, Adad S, Murta EF: Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: Bethesda classification and association with human papillomavirus. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2011; 2011: 904674.
7.
Watson M, Benard V, Lin L, Rockwell T, Royalty J: Provider management of equivocal cervical cancer screening results among underserved women, 2009–2011: follow-up of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Cancer Cause Control 2015; 26: 759–764.
8.
Sherman ME, Castle PE, Solomon D: Cervical cytology of atypical squamous cells – cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H): characteristics and histologic outcomes. Cancer 2006; 108: 298–305.
9.
López-Alegría F, Poblete O, De Lorenzi D, Oyanedel J: Clinical management of the first ASCUS report in Chile. Prospective single-cohort study. Sao Paulo Med J 2015; 133: 480–487.
10.
Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, Katki HA, Kinney WK, Schiffman M, Solomon D, Wentzensen N, Lawson HW: 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors: for the 2012 ASCCP consensus guidelines conference. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121: 829–846.
11.
Lee H, Lee E: HPV infection and p16 promoter methylation as predictors of ASC-US/LSIL progression. Cancer Cytopathol 2016; 124: 58–65.
12.
Husain A, Ramakrishnan V: Global variation of human papillomavirus genotypes and selected genes involved in cervical malignancies. Ann Glob Health 2015; 81: 675–683.
13.
Washiya K, Motoi M, Kobayashi T, Yoshioka H, Watanabe J: Significance of binucleated cells with compression in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Acta Cytol 2013; 57: 599–603.
14.
Kietpeerakool C, Tangjitgamol S, Srisomboon J: Histopathological outcomes of women with abnormal cervical cytology: a review of literature in Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15: 6489–6494.
15.
Nayar R, Wilbur DC: The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes, ed 3. Cham, Springer, 2015.
16.
Bibbo M, Wilbur D: Comprehensive Cyto­pathology. Philadelphia, Elsevier Saunders, 2014.
17.
Wallace N, Robinson K, Galloway D: Beta human papillomavirus E6 expression inhibits stabilization of p53 and increases tolerance of genomic instability. J Virol 2014; 88: 6112–6127.
18.
Koss L, Melamed M (eds): Koss’ Diagnostic Cytology and Its Histopathologic Bases, ed 5. Baltimore, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006.
19.
Xiao G, Emanuel P: Cervical parakeratosis/hyperkeratosis as an important cause for false negative results of Pap smear and human papillomavirus test. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49: 302–306.
20.
Kir G, Sarbay BC, Seneldir H: The significance of parakeratosis alone in cervicovaginal cytology of Turkish women. Diagn Cytopathol 2017; 45: 297–302.
21.
Jordão A, Ruggeri L, Chiucheta G, Piva S, Consolaro M: Importância da aplicação de critérios morfológicos não-clássicos para o diagnóstico citológico de papilomavírus humano. J Bras Patol Med Lab 2003; 39: 81–89.
22.
Xu L, Verdoodt F, Wentzensen N, Bergeron C, Arbyn M: Triage of ASC-H: a meta-analysis of the accuracy of hrHPV testing and other markers to detect cervical precancer. Cancer Cytopathol 2016; 124: 261–272.
23.
Fernandes F, Furtado Y, Russomano F, Silva KS, Silveira R, Faria P, Moreira P: Diagnóstico Citopatológico de ASC-US e ASC-H no Serviço Integrado Tecnológico em Citologia do INCA. Rev Bras Cancerol 2012; 58: 453–459.
24.
Longatto-Filho A, Levi JE, Martins TR, Cohen D, Cury L, Villa LL, Eluf-Neto J: Critical analyses of the introduction of liquid-based cytology in a public health service of the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Acta Cytol 2015; 59: 273–277.
25.
Discacciati M, Barboza B, Zeferino L: Por que a prevalência de resultados citopatológicos do rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero pode variar significativamente entre duas regiões do Brasil? Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2014; 36: 192–197.
26.
Schiffman M, Doorbar J, Wentzensen N, de Sanjosé S, Fakhry C, Monk BJ, Stanley MA, Franceschi S: Carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016; 2: 16086.
27.
Tafurt-Cardona Y, Acosta-Astaiza C, Sierra-Torres C: Prevalencia de citología anormal e inflamación y su asociación con factores de riesgo para neoplasias del cuello uterino en el Cauca, Colombia. Rev Salud Pública 2012; 14: 53–66.
28.
Nijhawan R, Mittal N, Suri V, Rajwanshi A: Enhancing the scope of conventional cervical cytology for detecting HPV infection. Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 38: 645–651.
29.
Choi I, Jin S, Lee D, Kim D, Jeen Y: Cytomorphologic features according to HPV DNA type in histologically proven cases of the uterine cervix. Korean J Pathol 2011; 45: 612–620.
30.
Lhee MJ, Cha YJ, Bae JM, Kim YT, Cho NH: Diagnostic algorithm to reflect regressive changes of human papilloma virus in tissue biopsies. Yonsei Med J 2014; 55: 331–338.
31.
Etchebehere RM, Almeida ÉC, Côbo EC, Duque AC, Murta EF, Adad SJ: Comparison of classical and secondary cytologic criteria relative to hybrid capture for diagnosing cervical-vaginal infection by human papillomavirus. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2016; 38: 41–46.
32.
Cortés-Gutiérrez EI, Dávila-Rodríguez MI, Fernández JL, López-Fernández C, Gosálvez J: Koilocytes are enriched for alkaline-labile sites. Eur J Histochem 2010; 54:e32.
33.
Srodon M, Parry D, Ronnett B: Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: diagnostic performance, human papillomavirus testing, and follow-up results. Cancer 2006; 108: 32–38.
34.
Veijalainen O, Tuomisaari S, Luukkaala T, Mäenpää J: High risk HPV testing in the triage of repeat ASC-US and LSIL. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94: 931–936.
35.
Boardman LA, Kennedy CM: Management of atypical squamous cells, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2008; 35: 599–614.
36.
Karimi-Zarchi M, Tabatabaie A, Dehghani-Firoozabadi A, Shamsi F, Baghianimoghaddam M, Dargahi M, Yazian P, Mojahed S: The most common type of HPV in women with atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance (ASCUS) in Pap smear in Iran-Yazd. Int J Biomed Sci 2015; 11: 173–175.
37.
Krishnan K, Thomas A: Correlation of cervical cytology with high-risk HPV molecular diagnosis, genotypes, and histopathology – a four year study from the UAE. Diagn Cytopathol 2016; 44: 91–97.
38.
Preisler S, Rebolj M, Untermann A, Ejegod DM, Lynge E, Rygaard C, Bonde J: Prevalence of human papillomavirus in 5,072 consecutive cervical SurePath samples evaluated with the Roche Cobas HPV real-time PCR assay. PLoS One 2013; 8:e0059765.
39.
Elfström KM, Smelov V, Johansson A, Eklund C, Naucler P, Arnheim-Dahlström L, Dillne J: Long-term HPV type-specific risks for ASCUS and LSIL: a 14-year follow-up of a randomized primary HPV screening trial. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: 350–359.
40.
Cytryn A, Russomano FB, Camargo MJ, Zardo LM, Horta NM, Fonseca RC, Tristão MA, Monteiro AC: Prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades II/III and cervical cancer in patients with cytological diagnosis of atypical squamous cells when high-grade intraepithelial lesions (ASC-H) cannot be ruled out. Sao Paulo Med J 2009; 127: 283–287.
41.
Gupta S, Sodhani P, Chachra KL, Singh V, Sehgal A: Outcome of ‘‘atypical squamous cells’’ in a cervical cytology screening program: implications for follow up in resource limited settings. Diagn Cytopathol 2007; 35: 677–680.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
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.