Premium
Cervical cytology/histology discrepancy: a 4‐year review of patient outcome
Author(s) -
Moss E. L.,
Moran A.,
Douce G.,
Parkes J.,
Todd R. W.,
Redman C. W. E.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
cytopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.512
H-Index - 48
eISSN - 1365-2303
pISSN - 0956-5507
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2010.00754.x
Subject(s) - cytology , medicine , histology , cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , colposcopy , cervical screening , cervical cancer , gynecology , radiology , pathology , cancer
E. L. Moss, A. Moran, G. Douce, J. Parkes, R. W. Todd and C. E. W. Redman Cervical cytology/histology discrepancy: a 4‐year review of patient outcomeObjective: To investigate the diagnosis, review and management of women identified as having a cytology/histology discrepancy. Methods: A review of all patients diagnosed with a discrepancy between referral smear and cervical histology was performed between January 2003 and December 2004. Cases were followed for a minimum of 4 years and patient management and outcome reviewed. Results: A significant discrepancy was identified in 79 cases, 0.1% of all smears ( n = 80 926) analysed during the study period. A discrepancy between cytology and histology, obtained from large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ), was confirmed by multidisciplinary review in 42 cases (53.2%). In 37 cases (46.8%) the cytological and/or histological diagnosis was revised; the cytology was significantly more likely than the histology to be amended (chi square P = 0.005), most often because cytology had been overcalled. Of the confirmed discrepancy cases, 33 (78.6%) were due to high‐grade squamous cell or glandular abnormalities on cytology with a negative, inflammatory or human papillomavirus (HPV) infection on histology (HGC/NH). HGC/NH cases were managed by cytological follow‐up in 29 (87.9%), of which 72.4% of the smears were negative when performed at least 6 months post‐excision. During the 4‐year follow‐up period six women with a confirmed HGC/NH underwent a repeat cervical excision (hysterectomy or LLETZ), and of these, HPV effect was seen in two cases but no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia was detected in any of the histological specimens. Conclusion: Cytology overcall was responsible for the majority of cytology/histology discrepancies. A confirmed discrepancy is not an indication for a further excisional biopsy but follow‐up is essential because a small percentage of patients may have disease that has been missed.