Resolving ASCUS without recourse to HPV testing: Manual reprocessing of residual automated liquid-based cytology (ALBC) material using manual liquid-based cytology (MLBC)
Bostwick Laboratories, Orlando, Florida 32809, USA. Diagnostic Cytopathology
(Impact Factor: 1.12).
01/2006; 33(6):434-40. DOI: 10.1002/dc.20324
We show that residual cell material from ThinPrep PapTest (Cytyc Corporation, Boxborough, MA) atypical squamous-cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) cases may be manually reprocessed to triage women into actionable diagnostic categories (HSIL, LSIL, and Negative). Material remaining from each of 358 ThinPrep ASCUS cases was manually reprocessed as two slides, labeled "A" and "B." Interobserver agreement between case contributors (CCs) and three sequential reviewers (SRs) was analyzed with 186 cases (Study 1), and diagnostic reproducibility between SRs was examined with an additional 172 cases (Study 2). In Study 1, CCs classified 33% of cases as LSIL or greater, SRs classified 60% as LSIL or greater, and there was 58% diagnostic agreement between CCs and SRs. No "Negative" case assignment by one group afforded an "HSIL" assignment by the complementary group. In Study 2, there was 95% agreement between SRs A slide and B slide diagnoses with 54% of A slides and 55% of B slides classified as LISL or greater. Again, no "Negative" case assignment to one slide afforded an "HSIL" assignment to the complementary slide. Overall, 12.6% of the 358 cases showed HSIL, and all HSILs by one observer group were ASCUS or greater by the complementary observer group. Using manual reprocessing beyond the 21-day specimen outdate for HPV testing by the Hybrid Capture II High Risk HPV test (HR-HCII; Digene Corporation, Beltsville, MD), many ThinPrep ASCUS cases were reclassified as LSIL or HSIL. The 12.6% HSIL proportion of this study approximated the 11.5% CIN 2 or greater proportion of the ALTS ASCUS arm. Similar to ALTS, manual liquid-based cytology (MLBC) would have referred nearly 60% of women to colposcopy for a definitive diagnosis of HSIL or LSIL without resorting to HPV testing. These data demonstrate that many cases of automated liquid-based cytology (ALBC)-diagnosed ASCUS represent unrecognized SIL, which is present in the ALBC specimen vial at the time the ASCUS diagnosis is rendered.
Available from: sciencedirect.com
Available from: Antonio Walter Ferreira
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To compare the relation between HPV viral load by hybrid capture II test (HCII) and cytological findings. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-two reagent samples to HPV DNA by HCII had their viral loads classified in four categories and correlated to cytological results. RESULTS: Twenty-two samples (6.1%) were reagent only to low-risk oncogenic types (group A) and 340 (93.9%) were reagent to high-risk oncogenic types (group B). The correlation between viral load for the reagent samples to group A and cytological results showed low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) predominance (50%). Most of this group samples had viral load between 1 to <10RLU/PCA. Of the patients that were reagent to group B 52.1% had LSIL cytology and 38.2% were negative to intraepithelial lesion and malignancy (NILM) cytology. The patients with LSIL had viral load well distributed with a slight predominance of 100 to < 1,000RLU/PCB category. The samples had viral load between 1 to <10RLU/PCB showed NILM cytology predominance (48.1%). High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (3.4%) were present on the samples with viral load between 100 to <1,000RLU/PCB (p = 0.023). There was a correlation between the median for group B viral load and LSIL/HSIL results. CONCLUSIONS: The quantification of viral load, mainly of high-risk HPV types, may be a useful tool for dealing with patients who have suspicious lesions.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We report a technical improvement upon a previously disclosed manual liquid-based cytology (MLBC) method; and, we use the improved method to prepare slides from residual ThinPrep specimens in order to see how often ThinPrep diagnoses correspond to diagnoses derived from exhaustive examination of their parent sample suspensions.
Residual cell suspensions from 500 ThinPrep cases comprising (1) 20 low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs); (2) 200 high risk (HR) negatives and 20 ASC-US; and (3) 260 screening cytology specimens were studied. Institutional review committee guidelines allowed us to know diagnoses by groups of specimens, but did not allow us to know individual patient diagnoses, so we could not perform case-by-case matched outcome-comparisons.
Cells were concentrated by conventional centrifugation and sedimented into a polymer gel that was then vortex-mixed and converted into a viscous cell-rich suspension. The cell suspension was smeared between two clean glass slides, which were air-dried and stained with the Papanicolaou stain. Two study-sets were created, comprising one slide from each case. Each of the two study sets was examined by two cytopathologists, and discordant diagnoses were adjudicated. Because of the ambiguity involved in the “atypical” (ASC-US, ASC-H, AGC) diagnosis categories, only outcomes at the level of LSIL or greater were recorded. All MLBC SILs were digitally imaged and abnormal slides plus digital images were sent to the laboratory that provided the residual automated liquid-based cytology (ALBC) suspensions. The final diagnoses were confirmed by the laboratory that provided the residual ALBC specimens.
MLBC slides of the 20 LSIL cases afforded 2 high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs) and 18 LSILs. Those of the 200 HR-Negatives showed 3 HSILs and 30 LSILs; and those of the 20 HR-ASC-US showed 3 HSILs and 9 LSILs. MLBC slides of the 260 screening cytology specimens showed 1 Carcinoma, 3 HSILs and 20 LSILs; affording 3 HSILs and 14 LSILs more than originally diagnosed.
The MLBC method of this report is useful for preparing cell suspensions for cytological examination. Our analytical method was exhaustive and used nearly all of the cell material that was provided to us for analysis; therefore, we conclude that this approach is useful for determining how well ALBC instruments represent their parent sample suspensions. It appears that “rare events” may be overlooked when limited sample aliquots are analyzed by ALBC instruments, and this probably accounts for our increased discovery of SILs by the MLBC method. Also, SILs often present as aggregates of cohesive cells which, if overlooked or ineffectively transferred to ALBC slides, would not be diagnosed. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2006;34:391–396.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.