Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.

Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Acta Cytologica 2014;58:47-52

Correlation Discrepancies between High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions and High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Cytological/Histological Correlation Study from a Single-Institution Experience

Zhang M.a · Carrozza M.a · Huang Y.b

Author affiliations

aDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa., and bDivision of Anatomic Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., USA

Corresponding Author

Correspondence to: Dr. Yajue Huang

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology

Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic

200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (USA)

E-Mail huang.yajue@mayo.edu

Do you have an account?

Login Information

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.


Objective: Previous studies have demonstrated diagnostic discrepancies for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2/3) from previously confirmed cytological high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). The goal of this study is to investigate the possible factors which may be responsible for this diagnostic discrepancy. Study Design: The study included all the cytological specimens diagnosed with a HSIL by the Papanicolaou (Pap) test at Temple University Hospital (2000-2010) as well as timely follow-up cervical biopsies. The biopsy tissue types and diagnoses were subsequently categorized and analyzed. Results: Of the total 842 Pap tests with HSIL diagnosis, 96 cases (11.4%) showed non-CIN 2/3 in follow-up cervical biopsies. Among those cases, the most common biopsy diagnoses were cervicitis (27.9%) and CIN 1 (25%). Endocervical curettage (ECC) samples showed a high percentage of inadequacy for diagnosis (43.7%). Thirty-seven cases had subsequent follow-up biopsy, and CIN 2/3 was found in 15 cases. However, none of the CIN 2/3 cases was detected by ECC sampling. Conclusions: Our study indicated that the discrepant correlation between HSIL and CIN 2/3 was most likely due to tissue sampling issues during colposcopic examination. The diagnostic value of ECC remains poor for the detection and grading of cervical intraepithelial dysplasia.

© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Gynecologic Cytopathology

Received: June 18, 2013
Accepted: October 31, 2013
Published online: December 10, 2013

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/ACY

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.