Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2002 May-Jun;46(3):453-7.
doi: 10.1159/000326860.

Histologic follow-up of atypical endocervical cells. Liquid-based, thin-layer preparation vs. conventional Pap smear

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Histologic follow-up of atypical endocervical cells. Liquid-based, thin-layer preparation vs. conventional Pap smear

Nancy Wang et al. Acta Cytol. 2002 May-Jun.

Abstract

Objective: To review the histologic findings in patients diagnosed with "atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance, endocervical cell type" (AGUS-EC) by ThinPrep Pap Test (TPPT) or conventional Pap smear (CPS) and to evaluate the clinical value of subclassifying AGUS-EC as "favor reactive" or "favor neoplastic."

Study design: All TPPT and CPS diagnosed as AGUS-EC (favor reactive, unspecified and favor neoplastic) from January 1998 through December 1999 and all available histologic follow-up (defined as endocervical curettage, cervical biopsy, cervical conization or hysterectomy obtained within six months of the time of an AGUS-EC diagnosis) were obtained from a computerized database.

Results: AGUS-EC was diagnosed in 0.77% of CPS (683 of 88,825) and 0.59% of TPPT (183 of 30,968) (P = NS). There was no statistically significant difference in any of the follow-up histologic diagnoses between the CPS and TPPT groups. The majority of the follow-up biopsies demonstrated benign processes in both groups. Patients with a diagnosis of AGUS-EC "favor neoplastic" had a greater proportion of true glandular pathology as compared with AGUS-EC "unspecified" or "favor reactive" (P < .001). None of the patients with a diagnosis of AGUS-EC "favor reactive" were found to have true glandular pathology; however, a minority of them proved to have squamous pathology.

Conclusion: In this study there was no difference in CPS and TPPT in regard to the specificity of a diagnosis of AGUS-EC for true glandular pathology. Subclassifying AGUS-EC as "favor reactive" or "favor neoplastic" may provide valuable information for directing patient follow-up.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms