Printer Friendly

Clinical utility of adjunctive high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing in women with Papanicolaou test findings of atypical glandular cells.

A typical glandular cell (AGC) interpretations (1-2) and screening for glandular cervical neoplasia (3-7) remain some of the major challenges in gynecologic cytopathology. Even though most Papanicolaou (Pap) tests with AGC findings turn out to reflect a variety of underlying benign conditions, (8-10) a significant subset of AGC cases reflect underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grades 2/3 and/or endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) as well as occasional cases of invasive cervical and noncervical carcinoma. (11-20) Cervical glandular cancers remain a major challenge to cervical cancer prevention efforts in the United States because cervical glandular cancers continue to increase even as squamous carcinomas have experienced an accelerated decline since the advent of liquid-based cytology. (21,22)

The low incidence of AGC Pap test results (23) to date has limited our understanding of how best to integrate high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing into AGC follow-up algorithms. Nevertheless, several series examining possible roles for hrHPV testing in patients with AGC Pap test results are accumulating. (24-37) Accordingly, we sought to analyze our histologic follow-up results for women with AGC Pap test findings and available hrHPV test results in a large, integrated, academic health system that was a participant in the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US)/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion triage study (38) and an early adopter of widespread adjunctive hrHPV testing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Case Selection

A retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). The computerized records at Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, from June 1, 2005, to August 31, 2007, were searched for cases with AGC cytology. The final diagnoses of AGC were made by staff cytopathologists, based on categories defined by the 2001 Bethesda System (39): AGC, either endocervical (AGC-EC), endometrial (AGC-EM), glandular cells not otherwise specified (AGC-NOS), and AGC favor neoplasia, either endocervical (AGC-EC-FN) or not otherwise specified (AGC-NOS-FN). Cases with cytologic interpretations of endocervical AIS and adenocarcinoma were not included in this study. Some women with AGC Pap tests had coexisting squamous abnormalities, such as ASC-US; atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H); and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). These subsets of cases were separated from other cases with AGC and no coexisting squamous cell abnormalities. Papanicolaou tests with findings of AGC and coexisting squamous abnormalities were included in the study as well-defined AGC subsets: AGC and ASC-US, AGC and ASC-H, AGC and HSIL. For the purposes of this study, all AGC cases were divided into 1 of the 6 following diagnostic categories: AGC and ASC-US, AGC and ASC-H, AGC and HSIL, AGC-EC, AGC-EM, and AGC-NOS. Intentionally, AGC favor neoplasia is a rarely used designation at this facility. Available literature (40-42) and extensive personal experience in Pap-related litigation and other retrospective reviews indicate that this AGC subtype is poorly reproducible. We prefer to emphasize to clinicians that all AGC subtypes reflect significant risk for underlying consequential disease and the need for recommended, but often neglected, (43-46) initial follow-up tissue examinations.

Surgical Pathology Follow-up

Follow-up included review and recording of surgical pathology results, including cervical biopsies, endocervical curettages, cone excisions, loop electrosurgical excision procedures, endometrial biopsies and curettages, and hysterectomies. For patients undergoing 2 or more procedures during the follow-up period, only the histologic diagnosis most out of reference range was recorded. Findings of abnormal histopathologic lesions were categorized into 4 large groups: (1) cervical squamous lesions, including (CIN 1) and CIN 2/3; (2) cervical glandular lesions, including AIS and invasive adenocarcinoma; (3) endometrial lesions, including endometrial hyperplasia, complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH), and endometrial carcinoma; and (4) metastatic malignancy. In this article, CIN terminology is used exclusively for histologic diagnoses. Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and HSIL terminology refers exclusively to cytologic results. Benign lesions, including endometrial polyps, endometritis, endocervical polyps, endocervical tubal metaplasia, and endocervical microglandular hyperplasia, were recorded. Each patient's age at time of AGC diagnosis, time elapsed from Pap test until colposcopic examination and cervical biopsy, follow-up procedures, and histologic findings were abstracted from the records.

Papanicolaou Test Methods

Papanicolaou tests specimens were collected by a highly diverse group of clinical providers, which included gynecologists, family physicians, internists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and trainees. All cytology specimens were processed and evaluated in the large, academic cytopathology laboratory at Magee-Womens Hospital and reported using current 2001 Bethesda System terminology. The Magee-Womens Hospital/ University of Pittsburgh Medical Center cytopathology laboratory is a large, subspecialized, academic hospital laboratory, which consistently reports more than 110000 Pap tests per year from a large integrated hospital health system and which serves a metropolitan area with a significantly older age profile than the national average. (47) Approximately 98% of Pap tests in this hospital are ThinPrep Pap tests prepared according to manufacturer's specifications from PreservCyt samples using an automated processor (ThinPrep 3000; Cytyc Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts). Staining of slides was done on a Sakura Tissue Tek Automated Slide Stainer (Cytyc) according to a US Food and Drug Administration-approved manufacturer's protocol. Location-guided, computer-assisted screening of ThinPrep Pap tests slides was accomplished using the ThinPrep Imaging System (Cytyc). (48) The cytology laboratory at Magee-Womens Hospital employs conservative workload policies (mean 8.0; range, 5.8-11.4 Pap tests per cytotechnologist screening hour) and has a continuous, quality improvement program that focuses on staff education through multiple slide-blinded reviews of abnormal and questionably abnormal, internal and external consultation, Pap test results that precede later tissue-documented cases of CIN 2/3, AIS, cervical carcinoma, and noncervical uterine carcinoma.

Human Papillomavirus Testing

Testing for hrHPV DNA was ordered by clinicians according to several ordering options: reflex testing, triggered by indeterminate abnormal atypical squamous cell Pap test results; routine cotesting with Pap testing in women 30 years and older; and hrHPV DNA cotesting, regardless of age or Pap test result. Detection of hrHPV DNA was performed using the commercially available US Food and Drug Administration-approved Hybrid Capture 2 system (49) (Digene Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis included a [chi square] test and a Fisher exact test for small numbers using the SAS software system, Version 9.1 (SAS Inc, Cary, North Carolina). P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

AGC Subcategories and Histopathologic Outcomes

During the June 1, 2005, to August 31, 2007, 27-month study period, 247 131 Pap tests were reported. The number of AGC results reported in this period was 1021 (0.41%). Test results for hrHPV from residual-vial fluid were available in 309 of 662 cases (46.7%) of AGC that also had available tissue follow-up results. The 309 cases of AGC were subclassified as AGC and ASC-US (n = 97; 31.4%), AGC and ASC-H (n = 29; 9.4%), AGC and HSIL (n = 4; 1.3%), AGC-EM (n = 19; 6.1%), AGC-EC (n = 75; 24.3%), and AGC-NOS (n = 85; 27.5%). The ages of women who had AGC ThinPrep Pap and reflex Hybrid Capture 2 hrHPV DNA test results ranged from 19 to 84 years, with a mean age of 44 years. The ages in different groups are listed in Table 1. The mean histologic follow-up period was 2.7 months, with a range of 10 days to 22 months.

Of the 309 cases of AGC, 97 women (31.4%) had neoplastic histologic follow-up results, including 71 cases with CIN (23.0%); 14 cases with cervical glandular neoplasia (4.5%), which included 4 cases with both AIS and CIN 2/3; 15 cases with endometrial neoplasias (4.9%), and 1 case with metastatic ovarian carcinoma (1%). The incidence of CIN was significantly higher than that of cervical glandular neoplastic lesions and endometrial neoplasias (both P < .001). The incidences of cervical glandular and endometrial neoplasias showed no statistical difference (P = .85).

A positive hrHPV DNA result was obtained in 75 of the 309 women (24.3%) with AGC Pap test results and available histologic follow-up. The [hrHPV.sup.+] rates were highest in women with AGC and HSIL (75.0%), AGC and ASC-H (41.4%), and AGC-EC (37.3%) and were lowest in the AGC-EM group (5.3%). Women with [HPV.sup.+] AGC results had a higher risk for detection of CIN (52.0%) and glandular neoplasia (17.3%) than women with [HPV.sup.-] AGC results (13.7% for CIN and 0.4% for endocervical glandular lesions). The differences were statistically significant (P < .001). When the histologic results were analyzed with respect to the initial Pap test interpretive subgroups and the hrHPV test results, an interpretation of AGC-EM was most often (22.2%) associated with a significant endometrial lesion and a negative HPV result. Negative hrHPV DNA results were present in all women with AGC Pap tests who, on histologic follow-up, had endometrial hyperplasia or endometrial cancer. Of the neoplastic lesions in the AGC-EM follow-up group, 80.0% (4 of 5) were endometrial in origin. In both AGC-EC and AGC-NOS groups, the incidence of CIN was higher than for cervical glandular lesions (AGC-EC, 27 versus 7; AGC-NOS, 10 versus 2). Of the [hrHPV.sup.+] AGC-EC and AGC-NOS cases, 25.0% and 14.3%, respectively, had cervical glandular lesions. One [HPV.sup.-], [AGC.sup.-], ASC-H case had follow-up findings of an endocervical adenosquamous carcinoma, but no cases of AGC-EC or AGC-NOS with negative hrHPV showed cervical glandular neoplasia. In the summarized initial group of Pap test results with AGC and abnormal squamous cells, CIN was found in 52.0% and 13.7% of women who were [hrHPV.sup.+] and [hrHPV.sup.-], respectively (P < .001). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia associated with an [HPV.sup.-] AGC result was CIN 1 in 31 of 32 cases (96.9%). Histologic cervical glandular neoplasias were found in 17.3% and 0.4% of women who were [hrHPV.sup.+] and [hrHPV.sup.-], respectively (P < .001). Table 1 summarizes the follow-up test with abnormal histologic results based on the initial Pap test subgroups and hrHPV test results in details.

Age and Histopathologic Outcomes

When age, hrHPV test results, and precancerous (CIN 2/3, AIS, CAH) and malignant (carcinoma) histologic outcomes alone were analyzed (refer to Table 2), CIN 2/3 was strongly related to [hrHPV.sup.+] AGC results in women younger than 40 years. All AIS patients were younger than 50 years. Six of 10 AIS cases (60%) were detected in women aged 40 to 49 years, and all 10 cases (100%) followed HPV+ AGC results. Endometrial neoplasias (CAH and carcinomas) predominated in women 50 years and older.

In total, 13 of 14 cervical glandular neoplasias cases (92.9%), 10 of 10 AIS cases (100%), and 3 of 4 cervical adenocarcinoma cases (75%) followed [hrHPV.sup.+] AGC results. The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity for reflex hrHPV DNA testing with AGC to detect cervical glandular neoplasia were 17.3%, 99.6%, 92.9%, and 79.0%, respectively. However, [HPV.sup.-] AGC results were present in 10 of 13 carcinomas (76.9%) detected after AGC Pap test findings in this series, all in women 40 years or older, including endometrial adenocarcinomas (n = 8), ovarian carcinoma (n = 1), and cervical adenosquamous carcinoma (n = 1) in a woman in her 50s.

Benign Histopathologic Outcomes

Benign histologic follow-up results of endometrial and endocervical polyps, endometritis, endocervical tubal metaplasia, and endocervical microglandular hyperplasia are summarized in Table 3.

COMMENT

This study from a large, integrated, academic health system supports accumulating data that adjunctive hrHPV testing has substantial clinical utility in women with AGC Pap test findings. (24-37) As noted in previous studies, the largest group of clinically significant (precancerous) lesions or malignant lesions detected after AGC Pap test results were noninvasive high-grade CIN, CIN 2/ 3 and/or AIS. (24,29,30,32,33) A positive HPV test result with an AGC Pap test result significantly increases the positive predictive value for high-grade CIN and AIS.

Age, in our data set, was strongly associated with different patterns of histologic outcome. Of 20 diagnosed cases of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2/3, AIS), 19 cases (95%) were in women younger than 50 years. None of 10 cases of AIS were detected in women 50 years or older. All 3 carcinomas detected in women younger than 50 years with [HPV.sup.+] AGC results were cervical adenocarcinomas. The only cervical carcinoma detected in a woman 50 years or older was an adenosquamous cervical carcinoma with an [HPV.sup.+] AGC/ASC-H Pap test result. In particular, 10 of 13 carcinomas (77%) detected after AGC Pap test findings in this series were in women 40 years and older with [HPV.sup.-] AGC Pap test results. Several recent clinical trials have proposed the possibility of using HPV testing as a primary screening test in older women, with cytology reserved for women with positive HPV test results. (50,51) This approach would have yielded negative screening test results for 10 of 13 carcinomas (77%) detected with AGC Pap test results in this study, including 1 of 4 cervical carcinomas (25%). In the largest reported age-stratified series of cervical adenocarcinomas, 49 of 132 cervical adenocarcinomas (37.1%) in women 40 years and older and 39 of 78 cervical adenocarcinomas (50.0%) in women 50 years and older tested negative for HPV. (52) The absence of HPV has been significantly associated with high age at diagnosis for cervical adenocarcinoma. (53) It would be unfortunate if some of the complementary benefits of cytologic screening and adjunctive HPV cotesting were to be lost in proposed algorithms employing primary HPV screening. (54-56)

Whether or not cytologic screening for endometrial adenocarcinoma is a realistic benefit of cytologic screening remains a matter of some debate. (57-59) In this study, the largest group of AGC-detected carcinomas were endometrial carcinomas, all detected in women 40 years and older. Atypical glandular cell Pap test results also detected 5 cases of precancerous complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia. Similar results have been reported, especially in studies of AGCs favored to be endometrial in origin (60,61) or of AGCs in postmenopausal women. (62) Several investigators have noted that precise discrimination as to the likely site of origin of AGCs is often uncertain, (1,63) precluding clinical algorithms based solely on cytologic-suspected site of origin. Our results are consistent with, and support, the most recent 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with AGCs, not otherwise specified. (64)

A hoped for, but as yet undocumented, benefit of HPV testing in screening for developing cervical glandular neoplasia would be detection of glandular neoplasias at earlier and more prognostically favorable stages. (6) As noted previously, the effect of screening to prevent endocervical adenocarcinoma has been far less than for squamous cancers in population studies. (3-7) For most women with HPV-associated endocervical carcinoma, (52,65) more widespread HPV cotesting could offer an additional test to potentially offset sampling, screening, or interpretive false-negative cytology results, (66) particularly in women younger than 50 years. The benefits of HPV testing in screening for glandular cervical neoplasia may also supplement reported benefits associated with liquid-based cytology and computer-assisted screening. (2,67-69)

References

(1.) Simsir A, Hwang S, Cangiarella J, et al. Glandular cell atypia on Papanicolaou smears: interobserver variability in the diagnosis and prediction of cell of origin. Cancer. 2003;99(6):323-330.

(2.) Lee KR, Daragh TM, Joste NE, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): Interobserver reproducibility in cervical smears and corresponding thin-layer preparations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117(1): 96-102.

(3.) Andrae B, Kermetli L, Sparen P, et al. Screening preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100(9):622-629.

(4.) The International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer. Comparison of risk factors for invasive squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cervix: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 8,097 women with squamous cell carcinoma and 1,374 women with adenocarcinoma from 12 epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer. 2006;120(4): 885-891.

(5.) Mitchell H, Hocking J, Saville M. Improvement in protection against adenocarcinoma of the cervix resulting from participation in cervical screening. Cancer. 2003;99(6):336-341.

(6.) Kinney W, Sawaya G, Sung H, Kearney K, Miller M, Hiatt RA. Stage at diagnosis and mortality in patients with adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix diagnosed as a consequence of cervical screening. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(2):167-171.

(7.) Herbert A, Singh N, Smith JAE. Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix compared with squamous cell carcinoma: a 12 year study in Southampton and South-west Hampshire. Cytopathology. 2001;12(1):26-36.

(8.) Schnatz PF, Guile M, O'Sullivan DM, Sorosky JI. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(3):701-708.

(9.) Haidopoulos DA, Stefanidis K, Rodolakis A, Pilalis A, Symiakaki I, Diakomanolis E. Histologic implications of Pap smears classified as atypical glandular cells. J Reprod Med. 2005;50(3):539-42.

(10.) Chhieng DC, Cangiarella JF. Atypical glandular cells. Clin Lab Med. 2003; 23(3):633-657.

(11.) Wood MD, Horst JA, Bibbo M. Weeding atypical glandular cell look-alikes from the true atypical lesions in liquid-based Pap tests: a review. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35(1):12-17.

(12.) Chichareon SB, Tocharoenvanich S. Risk factors of having high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia/invasive carcinoma in women with atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance smears. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006; 16(2):568-574.

(13.) Gurbuz A, Karateke A, Kabaca C, Kir G. Atypical glandular cells: improvement in cytohistologic correlation by the 2001 Bethesda system. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15(5):903-910.

(14.) Sharpless KE, Schnatz PF, Mandavilli S, Greene JF, Sorosky JI. Dysplasia associated with atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(3):494-500.

(15.) Torres JC, Derchain SF, Gontijo RC. Atypical glandular cells: criteria to discriminate benign from neoplastic lesions and squamous from glandular neoplasia. Cytopathology. 2005;16(6):295-302.

(16.) Barreth D, Faught W, Schepansky A, Johnson G. The relationship between atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on Pap smear and a clinically significant histologic diagnosis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2004;26(10): 867-870.

(17.) Chhieng DC, Gallaspy S, Yang H, Roberson J, Eltoum I. Women with atypical glandular cells: a long-term follow-up study in a high-risk population. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122(4):575-579.

(18.) Scheiden R, Wagener C, Knolle U, Dippel W, Capesius C. Atypical glandular cells in conventional cervical smears: incidence and follow-up. BMC Cancer. 2004;4:37.

(19.) Cangiarella JF, Chhieng DC. Atypical glandular cells--an update. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;29(5):271-279.

(20.) Jeng CJ, Liang HS, Wang TY, Shen J, Yang YC, Tzeng CR. Cytologic and histologic review of atypical glandular cells (AGC) detected during cervical cytology screening. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13:518-521.

(21.) Smith HO, Benwick M, Qualls CF, Verschraegen CF, Wiggins C. Thirty-year trends in cervical cancer incidence rates: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program population-based study. In: Plenary Sessions Compendium of the Annual Meeting on Women's Cancer from the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists; March 4-7, 2007; San Diego, CA. Abstract 196.

(22.) Linder J, Keene J, Sheets E. Cervical cancer reduction through higher sensitivity Pap testing: observed vs. calculated effects. Cancer. 2007;111:369.

(23.) Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128(11):1224-1229.

(24.) Chen L, Yang B. Assessment of reflex human papillomavirus DNA testing in patients with atypical endocervical cells on cervical cytology. Cancer. 2008; 114(4):236-241.

(25.) Rabelo-Santos SH, Derchain SFM, do Amaral Westin MC, et al. Endocervical glandular cell abnormalities in conventional cervical smears: evaluation of the performance of cytomorphological criteria and HPV testing in predicating neoplasia. Cytopathology. 2008;19(1):34-43.

(26.) Costa S, Negri G, Sideri M, et al. Human papillomavirus (HPV) test and Pap smear as predictors of outcome in conservatively treated adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 106(1):170-176.

(27.) Diaz-Montes TP, Farinola MA, Zahurak ML, Bristow RE, Rosenthal DL. Clinical utility of atypical glandular cells (AGC) classification: cytohistologic comparison and relationship to HPV results. Gynecologic Oncol. 2007;104(2): 366-371.

(28.) Oliveira ER, Derchain SF, Sarian LO, et al. Prediction of high-grade cervical disease with human papillomavirus detection in women with glandular and squamous cytologic abnormalities. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16(3):1055-1062.

(29.) Saqi A, Gupta PK, Eroll M, et al. High-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing: a marker for atypical glandular cells. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006;34(3):235-239.

(30.) Fetterman B, Shaber R, Pawlick G, Kinney W. Human papillomavirus testing in routine clinical practice for prediction of underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3+ at initial evaluation and in follow-up of women with atypical glandular cell Papanicolaou tests. J Lower Gen Tract. 2006;10(3): 1078-1079.

(31.) Werner CL, Griffith WF, West AM, Ashfaq R. Reflex human papillomavirus DNA testing of atypical glandular cell cervical cytologies [abstract]. J Lower Gen Tract. 2006;10(3):179.

(32.) Irvin W, Evans SR, Andersen W, et al. The utility of HPV DNA triage in the management of cytological AGC. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(2):559-567.

(33.) Oliveira ER, Derchain SF, Rabelo-Santos SH, et al. Detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA by hybrid capture II in women referred due to atypical glandular cells in the primary screening. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;31(1): 19-22.

(34.) Krane JF, Lee KR, Sun D, Yuan L, Crum CP. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: outcome predictions based on human papillomavirus testing. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;121(1):87-92.

(35.) Derchain SFM, Rabelo-Santos SH, Sarian LO, et al. Human papillomavirus detection and histologic findings in women referred for atypical glandular cells or adenocarcinoma in situ in their Pap smears. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:618-623.

(36.) Rowe LR, Aldeen W, Bentz JS. Prevalence and typing of HPV DNA by hybrid capture II in women with ASCUS, ASC-H, LSIL, and AGC on ThinPrep Pap tests. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30(6):426-432.

(37.) Ronnett BM, Manos MM, Ramsley JE, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): cytopathologic features, histopathologic results, and human papillomavirus DNA detection. Hum Pathol. 1999;30(7): 816-825.

(38.) Guidos R, Schiffman M, Solomon D, Burke L. Postcolposcopy management strategies for women referred with low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or human papillomavirus-positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a two year prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188(6):1401-1405.

(39.) Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2114-2119.

(40.) Reuss E, Price J, Koonings P. Atypical Glandular cells of undetermined significance: subtyping as a predictor of outcome. J Reprod Med. 2001;46(8): 701-775.

(41.) Simsir A, Hwang S, Cangiarella J, et al. Glandular cell atypia on Papanicolaou smears: interobserver variability in the diagnosis and predication of the cell of origin. Cancer. 2003;99(6):323-330.

(42.) Barreth D, Faught W, Schepansky A, et al. The relationship between atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on pap smear and a clinically significant histologic diagnosis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2004;26(10): 867-870.

(43.) DeSimone CP, Day ME, Towar MM, et al. Rate of pathology from atypical glandular cell Pap tests classified by the Bethesda 2001 nomenclature. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(6):1285-1291.

(44.) Holland-Barkis P, Forjuoh SN, Couchman GR, et al. Primary care physicians' awareness and adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in Texas. Prev Med. 2006;42(2):140-145.

(45.) Sharpless KE, Schnatz PF, Mandavilli S, Greene JF, Sorosky JI. Lack of adherence to practice guidelines for women with atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(3):501-506.

(46.) Noller KL, Bettes B, Zinberg S, Schulkin J. Cervical cytology screening practices among obstetricians-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(2):259-265.

(47.) US Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS) Web site. http:// www.census.gov/acs/www/. Accessed December 1, 2008.

(48.) Dzura B, Quinn S, Richard K. Performance of an imaging system vs. manual screening in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Acta Cytol. 2006;50(3):309-311.

(49.) Castle PE, Lorincz AT, Scott DR, et al. Comparison between prototype hybrid capture 3 and hybrid capture 2 human papillomavirus DNA assays for detection of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(9):4022-4030.

(50.) Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, et al. Results at recruitment from a randomized controlled trial comparing human papillomavirus testing alone with conventional cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(7):492-501.

(51.) Meijer CJ, Berkhof J, Castle PE, et al. Guidelines for human papillomavirus DNA test requirements for primary cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older. Int J Cancer. 2009;124(3):516-520.

(52.) Andersson S, Rylander E, Larson B, et al. Types of human papillomavirus revealed in cervical adenocarcinomas after DNA sequencing. Oncol Rep. 2003; 10(1):175-179.

(53.) Andersson S, Larson B, Hjerpe A, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: the presence of human papillomavirus and the method of detection. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(10):960-965.

(54.) Ferenczy A. Cervical cancer screening: the blessing of molecular technology. HPV Today. 2008;15:1-4.

(55.) Meijer CJ, Berkhof J, Castle PE, et al. Guidelines for human papillomavirus DNA test requirements for primary cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older. Int J Cancer. 2008;124(3):516-520.

(56.) Wright T. Cervical Cancer Screening in the 21st Century: is it time to retire the Pap? Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2007;50(2):313-323.

(57.) Kipp B, Medeiros F, Campion MB, et al. Direct uterine sampling with the Tao brush sampler using a liquid-based preparation method for the detection of endometrial cancer and atypical hyperplasia: a feasibility study. Cancer. 2008; 114(4):228-235.

(58.) Frable WJ. Screening for endometrial cancer? Cancer. 2008;114(4):219-221.

(59.) Mitchell H, Giles G, Medley G. Accuracy and survival benefit of cytological prediction of endometrial carcinoma on routine cervical smears. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1993;12(1):34-40.

(60.) Saad RS, Takei H, Liu YL, Silverman JE, Lipscomb JT, Ruiz B. Clinical significance of a cytologic diagnosis of atypical glandular cells, favor endometrial origin, in Pap smears. Acta Cytol. 2006;50(1):48-54.

(61.) Chieng D, Elgert P, Cohen JM, Cangierella JF. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance, favor endometrial origin. Cancer. 2001;93(6):351-356.

(62.) Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cohen JM, Cangiarella JF. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in postmenopausal women. Cancer. 2001;93:1-7.

(63.) Reuss J, Price J, Koonings P. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: subtyping as a poor predictor. J Reprod Med. 2001;46(8):701-705.

(64.) Wright TC, Massad S, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(4):346-355.

(65.) Castellsague X, Diaz M, de Sanjose S, et al. Worldwide human papillomavirus etiology of cervical adenocarcinoma and its cofactors: implications for screening and prevention. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98(5):303-315.

(66.) Kalir T, Simsir A, Demopoulos HB, Demopoulos RI. Obstacles to early detection of endocervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2005;24(4): 399-403.

(67.) Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F. Thin Prep Pap test: accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol. 1999;43(1):81-85.

(68.) Schorge JO, Hossein Saboorian M, Hynan L, Ashfaq R. Thin Prep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer. 2002;96(6):338-343.

(69.) Friedlander MA, Rudomina D, Lon O. Effectiveness of the Thin Prep imaging system on the detection of adenocarcinoma in the gynecologic system. Cancer. 2008;114(1):7-12.

Chengquan Zhao, MD; Anca Florea, MD; R. Marshall Austin, MD, PhD

Accepted for publication April 10, 2009.

From the Department of Pathology, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The authors have no relevant financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

Presented in part at the annual meeting of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Denver, Colorado, March 1-7, 2008.

Reprints: Chengquan Zhao, MD, Department of Pathology, MageeWomens Hospital of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 300 HalketSt, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (e-mail: zhaoc@upmc.edu).
Table 1. Correlation of the Atypical Glandular Cell (AGC)
Subcategories for 309 Cases With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus
(hrHPV) DNA Testing and Histologic Diagnoses of Neoplastic or
Malignant Lesions on Surgical Pathology Follow-up

 AGC/ASC-US (n = 97),
 No. (%)
 Cytologic Result
 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]

Age, y (range) 45.1 (19-84)
Histologic diagnosis, % 17 80
Squamous cell CIN 10 (58.8) 10 (12.5)
 CIN 2/3, No. 3 (a)
 CIN 1, No. 7 10
Glandular cell cervical neoplasia 1 (5.9) 0
 Invasive cervical carcinoma, No.
 AIS, No. 1 (a)
Endometrial neoplasia 0 6 (7.5)
 Endometrial carcinoma 3
 Endometrial hyperplasia 3
Ovarian neoplasia 0 0
 Serous carcinoma

 AGC/ASC-H (n = 29),
 No. (%)
 Cytologic Result
 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]

Age, y (range) 41.5 (21-76)
Histologic diagnosis, % 12 17
Squamous cell CIN 4 (33.3) 5 (29.4)
 CIN 2/3, No. 2 (a)
 CIN 1, No. 2 5
Glandular cell cervical neoplasia 2 (16.7) 1 (5.9)
 Invasive cervical carcinoma, No. 1 (c)
 AIS, No. 2 (a)
Endometrial neoplasia 0 0
 Endometrial carcinoma
 Endometrial hyperplasia
Ovarian neoplasia 0 0
 Serous carcinoma

 AGC/HSIL (n = 4),
 No. (%)
 Cytologic Result
 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]

Age, y (range) 34.4 (24-45)
Histologic diagnosis, % 3 1
Squamous cell CIN 3 (100) 1 (100)
 CIN 2/3, No. 2 (a) 1
 CIN 1, No. 1
Glandular cell cervical neoplasia 1 (33.3) 0
 Invasive cervical carcinoma, No.
 AIS, No. 1 (a)
Endometrial neoplasia 0 0
 Endometrial carcinoma
 Endometrial hyperplasia
Ovarian neoplasia 0 0
 Serous carcinoma

 AGC-EM (n = 19),
 No. (%)
 Cytologic Result
 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]

Age, y (range) 52.2 (42-77)
Histologic diagnosis, % 1 18
Squamous cell CIN 0 1 (5.6)
 CIN 2/3, No.
 CIN 1, No. 1
Glandular cell cervical neoplasia 0 0
 Invasive cervical carcinoma, No.
 AIS, No.
Endometrial neoplasia 0 4 (22.2)
 Endometrial carcinoma 1
 Endometrial hyperplasia 31
Ovarian neoplasia 0 0
 Serous carcinoma

 AGC-EC (n = 75),
 No. (%)
 Cytologic Result
 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]

Age, y (range) 38.7 (19-72)
Histologic diagnosis, % 28 47
Squamous cell CIN 15 (53.6) 12 (25.5)
 CIN 2/3, No. 4 (a)
 CIN 1, No. 11 12
Glandular cell cervical neoplasia 7 (25.0) 0
 Invasive cervical carcinoma, No. 3
 AIS, No. 4 (a)
Endometrial neoplasia 0 1 (2.1)
 Endometrial carcinoma
 Endometrial hyperplasia
Ovarian neoplasia 0 1 (2.1)
 Serous carcinoma 1

 AGC-NOS (n = 85),
 No. (%)
 Cytologic Result
 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]

Age, y (range) 46.3 (27-84)
Histologic diagnosis, % 14 71
Squamous cell CIN 7 (50.0) 3 (4.2)
 CIN 2/3, No. 2
 CIN 1, No. 5 3
Glandular cell cervical neoplasia 2 (14.3) 0
 Invasive cervical carcinoma, No.
 AIS, No. 2
Endometrial neoplasia 0 4 (5.6)
 Endometrial carcinoma 4
 Endometrial hyperplasia
Ovarian neoplasia 0 0
 Serous carcinoma

 Total (n = 309),
 No. (%)
 Cytologic Result
 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]

Age, y (range) 43.9 (19-84)
Histologic diagnosis, % 75 234
Squamous cell CIN 39 (52.0) 32 (13.7)
 CIN 2/3, No. 13 1
 CIN 1, No. 26 31
Glandular cell cervical neoplasia 13 (17.3) 1 (0.4)
 Invasive cervical carcinoma, No. 3 1
 AIS, No. 10
Endometrial neoplasia 0 15 (6.4)
 Endometrial carcinoma 8 (b)
 Endometrial hyperplasia 7
Ovarian neoplasia 0 1 (0.4)
 Serous carcinoma 1

Abbreviations: AGC-EC, AGC-endocervical; AGC-EM, AGC-endometrial
cells; AGC-NOS, AGC, not otherwise specified; AIS, adenocarcinoma in
situ; ASC-H, atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade
squamous lesion; ASC-US, atypical squamous cells of undetermined
significance; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grades 1 and
2-3); HSIL, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.

(a) One case with CIN 2, CIN 3, and AIS; 4 cases with both CIN 2/3 and
AIS.

(b) Including 7 cases of endometrioid cancer and 1 case of papillary
carcinoma.

(c) Adenosquamous carcinoma (older patient, HPV2).

Table 2. Age and Subsequent Significant Histologic Diagnoses in Women
With Atypical Glandular Cell Papanicolaou Tests and High-Risk Human
Papillomavirus (hrHPV) Test Results

 <40 y

 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]
 (n = 41) (n = 64)
Histologic Diagnoses No. (%) No. (%)

CIN 2/3 10 (a) (24.4) 1 (1.6)
Invasive cervical
 adenocarcinoma 2 (4.9) 0
AIS 4 (a) (9.8) 0
Endometrial carcinoma 0 0
CAH 0 0
Metastatic carcinoma 0 0
Total 13 (31.7) 1 (1.6)

 [greater than or equal
 to] 40 y to <50 y

 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]
 (n = 19) (n = 108)
Histologic Diagnoses No. (%) No. (%)

CIN 2/3 2 (b) (10.5) 0
Invasive cervical
 adenocarcinoma 1 (5.3) 0
AIS 6 (b) (31.6) 0
Endometrial carcinoma 0 2 (1.9)
CAH 0 2 (1.9)
Metastatic carcinoma 0 1 (0.9)
Total 8 (42.1) 5 (4.6)

 [greater than or equal
 to] 50 y

 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]
 (n = 15) (n = 62)
Histologic Diagnoses No. (%) No. (%)

CIN 2/3 1 (6.7) 0
Invasive cervical
 adenocarcinoma 0 1 (1.6)
AIS 0 0
Endometrial carcinoma 0 6 (9.7)
CAH 0 3 (4.8)
Metastatic carcinoma 0 0
Total 1 (6.7) 10 (16.1)

 Total

 [HPV.sup.+] [HPV.sup.-]
 (n = 75) (n = 234)
Histologic Diagnoses No. (%) No. (%)

CIN 2/3 13 (17.3) 1 (0.4)
Invasive cervical
 adenocarcinoma 3 (4.0) 1 (0.4)
AIS 10 (13.3)
Endometrial carcinoma 0 8 (3.4)
CAH 0 5 (2.1)
Metastatic carcinoma 0 1 (0.4)
Total 22 (29.3) 16 (6.8)

Abbreviations: AIS, adenocarcinoma in situ; CAH, complex atypical
endometrial hyperplasia; CIN 2/3 indicates cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia grades 2/3.

(a) There were 3 cases with both AIS and CIN 2/3.

(b) There was 1 case with both AIS and CIN 2/3 for a total of 4 cases
with AIS and CIN 2/3, all [HPV.sup.+].

Table 3. Significant Benign Histologic Diagnoses and High-Risk Human
Papillomavirus (hrHPV) Results Reported in 212 Cases of Atypical
Glandular Cells With Nonneoplastic Follow-up

 Histologic Diagnoses [hrHPV.sup.+] [hrHPV.sup.-]
 (n = 27), No. (%) (n = 185), No. (%)

Endometrial polyp 1 (3.7) 23 (12.4)
Endometritis 0 2 (1.1)
Endocervical polyp 1 (3.7) 7 (3.8)
Endocervical tubal metaplasia 1 (3.7) 13 (7.0)
Microglandular hyperplasia 1 (3.7) 6 (3.2)
Benign, other 23 (85.2) 137 (a) (74.1)

 Histologic Diagnoses Total (n = 212),
 No. (%)

Endometrial polyp 24 (11.3)
Endometritis 2 (0.9)
Endocervical polyp 8 (3.8)
Endocervical tubal metaplasia 14 (6.6)
Microglandular hyperplasia 7 (3.3)
Benign, other 160 (a) (75.5)

(a) A total of 3 cases had 2 benign lesions.
COPYRIGHT 2010 College of American Pathologists
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Zhao, Chengquan; Florea, Anca; Austin, R. Marshall
Publication:Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2010
Words:5762
Previous Article:Expression of JL1 is an effective adjunctive marker of leukemia cutis.
Next Article:Variation in human erythrocyte membrane unsaturated fatty acids: correlation with cardiovascular disease.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters