Dual sampling of the endocervix and its impact on AutoCyte Prep endocervical adequacy.

Am J Clin Pathol 2002 Jul;118(1):41-6

Carle Clinic Association, Urbana, IL, USA.

We compared satisfactory for evaluation but limited by (limited by) and unsatisfactory gynecologic cytologic diagnoses for samples collected by conventional smearing with those generated with the AutoCyte Prep in a population with a historic squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) rate of less than 1%. Results from 18,819 AutoCyte Preps were compared with 53,835 conventional cervical smears. Furthermore, 23 women ages 18 to 65 years undergoing annual Papanicolaou tests underwent sequential sampling with the AutoCyte Prep and the Surgipath C-E brush. Comparison of the AutoCyte Prep with conventional cytologic diagnoses revealed the following: unsatisfactory rate, down 97%; limited by rate, down 67%; low-grade SIL rate, up 86%; cervical cancer rate, up 300%; and high-grade SIL rate, unchanged. Examination of unsatisfactory and limited by cases for the AutoCyte Prep showed that 88% were due to absence of endocervical cells (ECs). Dual sampling showed no improvement in EC recovery over the AutoCyte collection device. Compared with conventional Papanicolaou smears, the AutoCyte Prep significantly decreased the rate of unsatisfactory and limited by specimens while increasing low-grade SIL and cancer detection and EC recovery. The majority of limited by specimens with the AutoCyte Prep were due to absence of ECs, but use of a brush-type device for better endocervical sampling did not enhance EC recovery.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1309/U72E-XD57-NF4J-XVG8DOI Listing
July 2002
16 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

autocyte prep
28
sil rate
12
autocyte
9
limited specimens
8
cytologic diagnoses
8
dual sampling
8
unsatisfactory limited
8
low-grade sil
8
prep
7
rate
7
limited
6
rate 86%
4
cervical cancer
4
86% cervical
4
high-grade sil
4
examination unsatisfactory
4
limited cases
4
cases autocyte
4
unchanged examination
4
rate unchanged
4

References

(Supplied by CrossRef)

Diaz-Rosario, LA et al.
Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999

Minge et al.
J Reprod Med 2000

Tench, W et al.
J Reprod Med 1991

Elishaev, E et al.
Acta Cytol 2001

Royer, MC et al.
Acta Cytol 2001

Kurtyez, DF et al.
Diagn Cytopathol 2000

Hutchinson, M et al.
J Reprod Med 1991

Hutchinson, M et al.
J Reprod Med 1991

Hutchinson, M et al.
J Reprod Med 1991

Hutchinson, M et al.
J Reprod Med 1991

Similar Publications