Objective: Detecting glandular lesions is challenging by all Pap test methodologies. As the availability of data on identifying glandular abnormalities by SurePath is scarce, we investigated the detection rates and the correlation with histology follow-up. Study Design: A total of 105,927 cases (SurePath and conventional) were searched for the diagnosis of atypical glandular cells or higher glandular abnormalities (AGC+) with the corresponding histologic diagnosis. The associations between the Pap test methods and diagnostic categories were assessed by χ2 test. Results: Overall, 0.32% of SurePath (159/49,375) and 0.29% of conventional (164/56,552) cases showed AGC+ (p = 0.38). Histology confirmed significant abnormalities in 42 versus 53.5% of the cases, respectively (p = 0.064); 72.7% (SurePath) versus 65.2% (conventional) of these were glandular in nature (p = 0.37). The diagnosis of neoplasia (favored or definitive) showed malignancy on follow-up in 100% of SurePath cases (12/12). In contrast, 82.1% of these conventional cases disclosed premalignant or malignant lesions by histology (p = 0.12). Conclusions: AGC+ cases showed higher prevalence on SurePath preparations. Conventional cases had more abnormalities on follow-up, while glandular lesions represented a higher proportion of abnormal histologies following SurePath AGC+s. The positive predictive value of favored or definite neoplasia was higher in SurePath cases. Overall, these differences were not statistically significant.

Keywords:
Atypical glandular cells, SurePath, Cervical screening, Correlation
© 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.