Adenocarcinoma In Situ in Cervical Smears With a Small Cell (Endometrioid) Pattern:<i>Distinction From Cells Directly Sampled From the Upper Endocervical Canal or Lower Segment of the Endometrium</i>

Lee, Kenneth R.; Genest, David R.; Minter, Lori J.; Granter, Scott R.; Cibas, Edmund S.

doi:10.1093/ajcp/109.6.738

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other lesions in this category are adenocarcinoma in situ and adenocarcinoma with carcinoid features. 18,19 Another cytologic pattern similar to that of PNET but distinctly different is small cell carcinoma, 30 or neuroendocrine small cell carcinoma (NSCC). 34,38,41 Another aggressive tumor, NSCC has classic neuroendocrine features of nests or cords of cells with angulated, hyperchromatic nuclei, fine "salt and pepper" chromatin and scant cytoplasm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumor of the Uterus

Ward

Hitchcock²,

Keyhani³

2000

Acta Cytologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumor of the Uterus

Ward

Hitchcock²,

Keyhani³

2000

Acta Cytologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There have been few studies that define AISassociated cell patterns and presentations that may be difficult to diagnose or detect. 8,9 In the current study, we found an error rate of ϳ10% (8 smears) in a retrospective review of smears from patients with biopsy-proven AIS. Four of the smears with errors had minimal, poorly preserved abnormal endocervical material, including examples of single, large sheets or aggregates of cells with nuclear pleomorphism; rosettelike structures; or disorganization and prominent nucleoli (Figs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 45%

“…The so-called small cell (or endometrioid) pattern of AIS was a common source of error in a previous study conducted by Lee et al,8 who found that diagnosis remained difficult even after intense educational efforts, but that improvement was possible. 9 This cell pattern was not a particular problem in the current series, possibly due to the limited number of cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…7 There also have been indications that improvements in cytodiagnosis and detection are possible in certain types of AIS for which there is acknowledged diagnostic difficulty (e.g., small cell or endometrioid lesions that closely resemble high endocervical or low uterine sampling). 8,9 Recently, Mitchell et al reported an improvement in protection against adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix in women who participated in a screening program. Those authors estimated that with biennial screening, a 46% reduction in the cumulative incidence of invasive adenocarcinoma could be achieved and that with annual screening, a 65% reduction was possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix

Ruba

Schoolland

Allpress

et al. 2004

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND.Little attention has been given to the reasons for failure to detect adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the uterine cervix in Papanicolaou (Pap) smears. In the current study, the authors examined a series of screening or diagnostic errors in cases in which the final histologic diagnosis was either AIS or AIS combined with a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (AIS ϩ HSIL). METHODS.Smears obtained in the 3 years before histologically proven AIS or AIS ϩ HSIL was diagnosed and within a specified 6-year period (1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998) were reviewed and reclassified. All were conventional Pap smears. The smears studied were those with a review diagnosis of possible or definite high-grade epithelial abnormality that initially were reported by a cytotechnologist to be negative (screening error) or that were reported by a pathologist to be negative, unsatisfactory, or indicative of a low-grade epithelial abnormality (diagnostic error). A semiquantitative, blinded assessment of the frequency of cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of AIS was made for smears with erroneous diagnoses compared with a series of smears that yielded true-positive findings. CONCLUSIONS. Sampling errors were the main cause of false-negative reports in cases of AIS and AIS ϩ HSIL. The primary factors that contributed to screening or diagnostic errors in AIS were minimal, poorly preserved abnormal material and an overly conservative approach to the assessment of unusual large sheets or aggregates of glandular cells. With regard to AIS ϩ HSIL, most laboratory errors were related to the presence of crowded groups of squamous epithelial cells. There were fewer errors in the last 3 years of the study, raising the possibility of improvement over time. RESULTS.

show abstract

“…A recent article 3 demonstrates both the utility and potential utility of the shortcut application. In that article, 29 smears of adenocarcinoma-in-situ (AIS) and benign AIS mimics were examined by 3 raters, so n = 29.…”

Section: K = 1 -Dis X3n/ [Pos X (3n -Pos)]mentioning

confidence: 99%