Abstract
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.
References
1.
Wang
SS
, Sherman
ME
, Hildesheim
A
, Lacey
JV
Jr, Devesa
S
. Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976-2000
. Cancer
. 2004
Mar
;100
(5
):1035
–44
.
[PubMed]
0008-543X2.
Sherman
ME
, Wang
SS
, Carreon
J
, Devesa
SS
. Mortality trends for cervical squamous and adenocarcinoma in the United States. Relation to incidence and survival
. Cancer
. 2005
Mar
;103
(6
):1258
–64
.
[PubMed]
0008-543X3.
Bray
F
, Carstensen
B
, Møller
H
, Zappa
M
, Zakelj
MP
, Lawrence
G
, et al. Incidence trends of adenocarcinoma of the cervix in 13 European countries
. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
. 2005
Sep
;14
(9
):2191
–9
.
[PubMed]
1055-99654.
Smith
HO
, Tiffany
MF
, Qualls
CR
, Key
CR
. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States—a 24-year population-based study
. Gynecol Oncol
. 2000
Aug
;78
(2
):97
–105
.
[PubMed]
0090-82585.
Nayar
R
, Wilbur
D
, editors. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical cytology: Definitions, criteria and explanatory notes
. Springer
; 2015
. 6.
Ashfaq
R
, Gibbons
D
, Vela
C
, Saboorian
MH
, Iliya
F
. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease
. Acta Cytol
. 1999
Jan-Feb
;43
(1
):81
–5
.
[PubMed]
0001-55477.
Tambouret
R
, Wilbur
D
. Glandular lesions of the uterine cervix. Cytopathology with histologic correlates
. Springer
; 2016
.8.
Chhieng
DC
, Cangiarella
JF
. Atypical glandular cells
. Clin Lab Med
. 2003
Sep
;23
(3
):633
–57
.
[PubMed]
0272-27129.
Mathers
ME
, Johnson
SJ
, Wadehra
V
. How predictive is a cervical smear suggesting glandular neoplasia?
Cytopathology
. 2002
Apr
;13
(2
):83
–91
.
[PubMed]
0956-550710.
Chin
AB
, Bristow
RE
, Korst
LM
, Walts
A
, Lagasse
LD
. The significance of atypical glandular cells on routine cervical cytologic testing in a community-based population
. Am J Obstet Gynecol
. 2000
Jun
;182
(6
):1278
–82
.
[PubMed]
0002-937811.
Sharpless
KE
, Schnatz
PF
, Mandavilli
S
, Greene
JF
, Sorosky
JI
. Dysplasia associated with atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology
. Obstet Gynecol
. 2005
Mar
;105
(3
):494
–500
.
[PubMed]
0029-784412.
Valdini
A
, Vaccaro
C
, Pechinsky
G
, Abernathy
V
. Incidence and evaluation of an AGUS Papanicolaou smear in primary care
. J Am Board Fam Pract
. 2001
May-Jun
;14
(3
):172
–7
.
[PubMed]
0893-865213.
Schorge
JO
, Hossein Saboorian
M
, Hynan
L
, Ashfaq
R
. ThinPrep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study
. Cancer
. 2002
Dec
;96
(6
):338
–43
.
[PubMed]
0008-543X14.
Cheung
AN
, Szeto
EF
, Leung
BS
, Khoo
US
, Ng
AW
. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population
. Cancer
. 2003
Dec
;99
(6
):331
–5
.
[PubMed]
0008-543X15.
Bai
H
, Sung
CJ
, Steinhoff
MM
. ThinPrep Pap Test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix
. Diagn Cytopathol
. 2000
Jul
;23
(1
):19
–22
.
[PubMed]
8755-103916.
Hecht
JL
, Sheets
EE
, Lee
KR
. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin-layer preparations
. Cancer
. 2002
Feb
;96
(1
):1
–4
.
[PubMed]
0008-543X17.
Cangiarella
JF
, Chhieng
DC
. Atypical glandular cells—an update
. Diagn Cytopathol
. 2003
Nov
;29
(5
):271
–9
.
[PubMed]
8755-103918.
Lee
KR
, Darragh
TM
, Joste
NE
, Krane
JF
, Sherman
ME
, Hurley
LB
, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): interobserver reproducibility in cervical smears and corresponding thin-layer preparations
. Am J Clin Pathol
. 2002
Jan
;117
(1
):96
–102
.
[PubMed]
0002-917319.
Ajit
D
, Gavas
S
, Joseph
S
, Rekhi
B
, Deodhar
K
, Kane
S
. Identification of atypical glandular cells in pap smears: is it a hit and miss scenario?
Acta Cytol
. 2013
;57
(1
):45
–53
.
[PubMed]
0001-554720.
Belsley
NA
, Tambouret
RH
, Misdraji
J
, Muzikansky
A
, Russell
DK
, Wilbur
DC
. Cytologic features of endocervical glandular lesions: comparison of SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional smear specimen preparations
. Diagn Cytopathol
. 2008
Apr
;36
(4
):232
–7
.
[PubMed]
8755-103921.
Bansal
B
, Gupta
P
, Gupta
N
, Rajwanshi
A
, Suri
V
. Detecting uterine glandular lesions: role of cervical cytology
. Cytojournal
. 2016
Feb
;13
(1
):3
.
[PubMed]
1742-641322.
Patel
C
, Ullal
A
, Roberts
M
, Brady
J
, Birch
P
, Bulmer
JN
, et al. Endometrial carcinoma detected with SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology: comparison with conventional cytology
. Cytopathology
. 2009
Dec
;20
(6
):380
–7
.
[PubMed]
0956-550723.
Boyraz
G
, Basaran
D
, Salman
MC
, Ibrahimov
A
, Onder
S
, Akman
O
, et al. Histological Follow-Up in Patients with Atypical Glandular Cells on Pap Smears
. J Cytol
. 2017
Oct-Dec
;34
(4
):203
–7
.
[PubMed]
0970-937124.
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(TM) liquid-based cytology (LBC) system
. Diagn Cytopathol
. 2011
Dec
;39
(12
):869
–74
.
[PubMed]
8755-103925.
Finall
AI
, Olafsdottir
R
. Outcomes of cervical liquid-based cytology suggesting a glandular abnormality
. Cytopathology
. 2009
Dec
;20
(6
):367
–74
.
[PubMed]
0956-550726.
Thiryayi
SA
, Marshall
J
, Rana
DN
. An audit of liquid-based cervical cytology screening samples (ThinPrep and SurePath) reported as glandular neoplasia
. Cytopathology
. 2010
Aug
;21
(4
):223
–8
.
[PubMed]
0956-5507© 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.
