Cervical Cytology–Histology Correlation Based on the American Society of Cytopathology Guideline (2017) at the Russian National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology

Recent evidence suggests that a cytology–histology correlation (CHC) with discrepancy detection can both evaluate errors and improve the sensitivity and specificity of the cytologic method. We aimed to analyze the errors in cytologic–histologic discrepancies according to the CHC protocol guideline of the American Society of Cytopathology (2017). This retrospective study included 273 patients seen at the National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology (Moscow, Russia) between January 2019 and September 2021. The patients’ mean age was 34 ± 8.1 years. The cytology–histology agreement was noted in 158 cases (57.9%). Major discrepancies were found in 21 cases (7.6%), while minor discrepancies were noted in 93 cases (34.1%). The reason for 13 (4.8%) discrepancies was a colposcopy sampling error and, in 46 (16.8%) cases, the reason was a Papanicolaou (PAP) test sampling error. The discrepancy between primary and reviewed cytology was due interpretive errors in 13 (4.8%) cases and screening errors in 42 (15.4%) cases. We demonstrated that the ASC guidelines facilitate cervical CHC. A uniform application of these guidelines would standardize cervical CHCs internationally, provide a scope for the inter-laboratory comparison of data, and enhance self-learning and peer learning.

Morphological Differences between Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Preparation in Endometrial Endometrioid Carcinoma Grade 1 and Grade 3, and the Differentiation of Grades in Each Method

Introduction: Direct smearing preparation (conventional preparation [CP]) has been widely used for endometrial cytology in Japan. In CP, sampling and screening errors are problematic. In liquid-based cytology preparation (LBC), the problems of CP can be solved. But there is a problem that cytological findings of LBC are different from those of CP. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences of morphological findings of endometrial cytology between LBC and CP, and the usefulness of the endometrial LBC to differentiate endometrioid carcinoma grade 1 (G1) from grade 3 (G3). Methods: Thirteen cases of endometrioid carcinoma G1, and 5 cases of G3 collected by the Softcyte device and prepared by LBC and CP (split specimen) were used. We focused on the following items: (1) the number of clusters per cm2, (2) the number of layers of clusters, (3) area of clusters, (4) perimeter of clusters, (5) roundness of clusters, (6) complexity of clusters, (7) area of nucleus, (8) perimeter of nucleus, (9) roundness of nucleus, (10) complexity of nucleus, (11) area of nucleolus, and (12) nucleolus-nucleus ratio (N/N). Results: Compared with CP, the number of clusters and layers of the clusters in LBC were significantly larger in G1. The area and perimeters of the clusters and the nucleus were significant smaller, and the N/N ratio was greater in LBC than that in CP in both G1 and G3. Regarding morphological differences between G1 and G3 in LBC and CP, the number of layers was significantly larger in G1 than in G3 in LBC and CP. The area of the clusters in LBC was significantly larger in G1 than in G3. The area and perimeters of the nucleus in CP and the area of the nucleolus and N/N ratio in LBC and CP were significantly smaller in G1 than in G3. Conclusion: In the endometrial cytology, it became clear that the cell image was different between LBC and CP and between G1 and G3. By microscopic examination understanding the characteristics of the cell image in LBC, endometrial LBC could be useful to diagnose endometrial carcinoma.