Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 57, No. 1, 2013
Issue release date: January–February
Acta Cytologica 2013;57:45–53
(DOI:10.1159/000342744)

Identification of Atypical Glandular Cells in Pap Smears: Is It a Hit and Miss Scenario?

Ajit D. · Gavas S. · Joseph S. · Rekhi B. · Deodhar K. · Kane S.
Department of Cytopathology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Objective: Glandular cell abnormality (GCA) in Pap smears is uncommon. Detection is important as the possibility of underlying high-grade lesions is greater in this entity than in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. This study was undertaken with an aim to correlate GCA cases with histology, scrutinize its mimics and identify cytologic features to segregate significant lesions from benign. Study Design: A total of 22,618 conventional Pap smears were retrospectively analyzed. In all, 74 GCA cases were identified, correlated with histology and reevaluated using parameters based on architectural pattern, cellular features and background. Results: This study revealed 15 false positives. On review, 11 cases [1 adenocarcinoma, 5 atypical glandular cells (AGC), not otherwise specified, 5 AGC, favor neoplasia (FN)] were recategorized as reactive. Of 9 cases reported as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia on histology, cytodiagnosis in 5 was revised from AGC-FN to high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion involving glands. Initial overall cytohistology concordance was 79.7%. Reevaluation of the smears, based on stringent cytomorphological criteria, enhanced overall agreement to 94.59%. Conclusions: A diagnosis of AGC has considerable clinical implications. Dissociated atypical cells, nuclear membrane, architecture and chromatin pattern are the key distinguishing features between neoplastic and benign lesions.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

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 or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
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 goverment 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.

References

  1. National Cancer Institute Workshop: The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. JAMA 1989;262:931–934.
  2. Chhieng DC, Elgert PA, Cangiarella JF, Cohen JM: Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. A follow-up study from an academic medical center. Acta Cytol 2000;44:557–566.
  3. Solomon D, Frable WJ, Vooijs GP, Wilbur DC, Amma NS, Collins RJ, Davey DD, Knight BK, Luff RD, Meisels A, Navin J, Rosenthal DL, Sauer T, Stoler M, Suprun HZ, Yamauchi K: ASCUS and AGUS criteria. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial. Acta Cytol 1998;42:16–24.
  4. 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;35:12–17.
  5. Dighe S, Ajit D: Collection devices for cervicovaginal cytology: a comparison. Acta Cytol 2005;49:416–420.
  6. Solomon D, Nayar R: The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology, ed 2. New York, Springer, 2004.
  7. Papanicolaou GN: Atlas of Exfoliative Cytology. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1954.
  8. Reagan JW, Seidemann IL, Saracusa Y: The cellular morphology of carcinoma in situ and dysplasia or atypical hyperplasia of the uterine cervix. Cancer 1953;6:224–235.
  9. Richart RM: Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1968;5:748.
  10. Richart RM: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; in Sommers CC (ed): Pathology Annual. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1973, pp 301–328.
  11. Patten SF Jr: Diagnostic Cytology of the Uterine Cervix, ed 2. Basel, Karger, 1978.
  12. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: revised after the second National Cancer Institute Workshop, April 29–30, 1991. Acta Cytol 1993;37:115–124.
  13. Castle PE, Fetterman B, Poitras N, Lorey T, Shaber R, Kinney W: Relationship of atypical glandular cell cytology, age, and human papilloma virus detection to cervical and endometrial cancer risks. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:243–248.
  14. Cangiarella JF, Chhieng DC: Atypical glandular cells – an update. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;29:271–279.
  15. Zhao C, Austin RM, Pan J, Barr N, Martin SE, Raza A, Cobb C: Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells in conventional pap smears in a large, high-risk U.S. west coast minority population. Acta Cytol 2009;53:153–159.
  16. Kirwan JM, Herrington CS, Smith PA, Turnbull LS, Herod JJ: A retrospective clinical audit of cervical smears reported as ‘glandular neoplasia’. Cytopathology 2004;15:188–194.
  17. Moreira MAR, Longatto Filho A, Castelo A, de Barros MR, Silva AP, Thomann P, Mattosinho de Castro Ferraz Mda G, Dores GB: How accurate is cytological diagnosis of cervical glandular lesions? Diagn Cytopathol 2008;36:270–274.
  18. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, Matchar DB: Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities. A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810–819.
  19. Lee KR, Darragh TM, Joste NE, Krane JF, Sherman ME, Hurley LB, Allred EM, Manos MM: Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS). Interobserver reproducibility in cervical smears and corresponding thin-layer preparations. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:96–102.
  20. Wang N, Emancipator SN, Rose P, Rodriguez M, Abdul-Karim FW: Histologic follow-up of atypical endocervical cells. Liquid-based, thin-layer preparation vs. conventional Pap smear. Acta Cytol 2002;46:453–457.
  21. Simsir A, Hwang S, Cangiarella J, Elgert P, Levine P, Sheffield MV, Roberson J, Talley L, Chhieng DC: Glandular cell atypia on Papanicolaou smears. Interobserver variability in the diagnosis and prediction of the cell of origin. Cancer 2003;99:323–330.
  22. Koonings PP, Price JH: Evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: is age important? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1457–1461.
  23. Kaferle JE, Malouin JM: Evaluation and management of the AGUS Papanicolaou smear. Am Fam Physician 2001;63:2239–2244.
  24. Dalla Nora LC, Azara CZ, Pace EL, Martins CM, Zeferino LC, Westin MC, Derchain SF, Rabelo-Santos SH: Cytomorphological criteria, subclassifications of endocervical glandular cell abnormalities, and histopathological outcome: a frequency study. Diagn Cytopathol 2010;38:806–810.
  25. Duska LR, Flynn CF, Chen A, Whall-Strojwas D, Goodman A: Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:278–282.
  26. Burja IT, Thompson SK, Sawyer WL Jr, Shurbaji MS: Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical smears. A study with cytohistologic correlation. Acta Cytol 1999;43:351–356.
  27. Eddy GL, Ural SH, Strumpf KB, Wojtowycz MA, Piraino PS, Mazur MT: Incidence of atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance in cervical cytology following introduction of the Bethesda System. Gynecol Oncol 1997;67:51–55.
  28. Geier CS, Wilson M, Creasman W: Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:64–69.
  29. Korn AP, Judson PL, Zaloudek CJ: Importance of atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance in cervical cytologic smears. J Reprod Med 1998;43:774–778.
  30. Zweizig S, Noller K, Reale F, Collis S, Resseguie L: Neoplasia associated with atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 1997;65:314–318.
  31. Thamboo TP, Salto-Tellez M, Tan KB, Nilsson B, Rajwanshi A: Cervical cytology: an audit in a Singapore teaching hospital. Singapore Med J 2003;44:256–260.
  32. Renshaw AA: Comparing methods to measure error in gynecologic cytology and surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:626–629.
  33. Lee KR, Manna EA, St. John T: Atypical endocervical glandular cells: accuracy of cytologic diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;13:202–208.
  34. Ronnett BM, Manos MM, Ransley JE, Fetterman BJ, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, Ngai JS, Kurman RJ, Sherman ME: Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): cytopathologic features, histopathologic results, and human papillomavirus DNA detection. Hum Pathol 1999;30:816–825.
  35. Selvaggi SM, Haefner HK: Microglandular endocervical hyperplasia and tubal metaplasia: pitfalls in the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma on cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:168–173.
  36. Eltabbakh GH, Lipman JN, Mount SL, Morgan A: Significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on ThinPrep Papanicolaou smears. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78:245–250.
  37. Johnson JE, Rahemtulla A: Endocervical glandular neoplasia and its mimics in ThinPrep Pap tests: a descriptive study. Acta Cytol 1999;43:369–375.
  38. Soofer SB, Sidawy MK: Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: clinically significant lesions and means of patient follow up. Cancer 2000;90:207–214.
  39. Young NA, Moriarty AT, Walsh MK, Wang E, Wilbur DC: The potential for failure in gynecologic regulatory proficiency testing with current slide validation criteria: results from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison in Gynecologic Cytology Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:1114–1118.
  40. Raab SS, Isacson C, Layfield LJ, Lenel JC, Slagel DD, Thomas PA: Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: cytologic criteria to separate clinically significant from benign lesions. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;104:574–582.
  41. Siziopikou KP, Wang HH, Abu-Jawdeh G: Cytologic features of neoplastic lesions in endocervical glands. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:1–7.
  42. Oliveira ER, Derchain SF, Rabelo-Santos SH, Westin MC, Zeferino LC, Campos EA, Syrjanen KJ: Detection of high risk human papillomavirus (HPV) by Hybrid Capture II in women referred due to atypical glandular cells in the primary screening. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;31:19–22.
  43. 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;1212:87–92.

    External Resources



Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50