Gynecologic Cytopathology
Nomura H. · Sugiyama Y. · Nishino S. · Ikki A. · Murakami A. · Matsumoto T. · Fusegi A. · Omi M. · Aoki Y. · Abe A. · Tanigawa T. · Netsu S. · Okamoto S. · Omatsu K. · Yunokawa M. · Kanao H.Department of Gynecology, Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more
CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price. Rent/Cloud Rent for 48h to view Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud Printing and saving restrictions apply Rental: USD 8.50* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.
Article / Publication DetailsFirst-Page Preview
Received: January 22, 2022
Accepted: March 15, 2022
Published online: April 14, 2022
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 3
Number of Tables: 3
ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ACY
AbstractIntroduction: In Japan, endometrial cytology is widely performed to evaluate the status of the endometrium in women with suspected endometrial cancer. A new classification system for endometrial cytology has recently been used: the Yokohama system, based on a descriptive reporting format. This study aimed to clarify the triage for patients with atypical endometrial cells of undetermined significance (ATEC-US) when followed by negative endometrial cytology. Methods: We enrolled patients diagnosed with ATEC-US at the Cancer Institute Hospital between January 2016 and December 2017, based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) ATEC-US diagnosed by office endometrial cytology, with or without office endometrial biopsy; (2) follow-up endometrial cytology was performed 3–6 months after initial sampling, with a negative result for malignancy; and (3) no prior history of conservative treatment with progestin for endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (ATEC-A). Among eligible patients, we analyzed those later diagnosed by endometrial biopsy with ATEC-A or carcinoma. Results: Among 187 patients, 65 met the inclusion criteria. Forty-two patients (64.6%) were observed for more than 24 months. Two patients (3.1%) developed ATEC-A during a median observation time of 26.5 months; the times to diagnosis were 32 months and 22 months. Discussion/Conclusion: No patient developed ATEC-A or worse within 1 year. For patients with ATEC-US, if negative cytology is obtained at the next examination, a close follow-up is not necessary.
© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel
References Chambers JT, Chambers SK. Endometrial sampling: when? Where? Why? With what? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Mar;35(1):28–39. Shapley M, Redman CW. Endometrial sampling and general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1997 Jun;47(419):387–91. Koss LG. Detection of occult endometrial carcinoma. J Cell Biochem Suppl. 1995;23:165–73. Buccoliero AM, Castiglione F, Gheri CF, Garbini F, Fambrini M, Bargelli G, et al. Liquid-based endometrial cytology: its possible value in postmenopausal asymptomatic women. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007 Jan–Feb;17(1):182–7. Yanoh K, Hirai Y, Sakamoto A, Aoki D, Moriya T, Hiura M, et al. New terminology for intrauterine endometrial samples: a group study by the Japanese society of clinical cytology. Acta Cytol. 2012;56(3):233–41. Sugiyama Y. Directly sampled endometrial cytology. In: Mody DR, Thrall MJ, Krishnamurthy S, editors. Diagnostic pathology: cytopathology. Oxford: Elsevier; 2018. p. 92–5. Yanoh K, Norimatsu Y, Hirai Y, Takashima N, Kamimori A, Nakamura Y, et al. New diagnostic reporting format for endometrial cytology based on cytoarchitectural criteria. Cytopathology. 2009 Dec;20(6):388–94. Fulciniti F, Yanoh K, Karakitsos P, Watanabe J, Di Lorito A, Margari N, et al. The Yokohama system for reeporting directly sampled endometrial cytology: the quest to develop a standardized terminology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2018 May;46(5):400–12. Nomura H, Sugiyama Y, Ito T, Furuta N, Komatsu K, Takazawa Y, et al. Clinical management of the status of atypical endometrial cells using the descriptive reporting format for endometrial cytology. Cytopathology. 2019 Mar;30(2):209–14. Shinagawa A, Kurokawa T, Yamamoto M, Onuma T, Tsuyoshi H, Chino Y, et al. Evaluation of the benefit and use of the new terminology in endometrial cytology reporting system. Diagn Cytopathol. 2018 Apr;46(4):314–9. Munakata S, Sasaki S, Takase M, Okatake R, Suzuki Y, Yamamoto T, et al. Practical usefulness of atypical endometrial cell categories within the new classification of endometrial cytology when applied to conventional smears. Cytopathology. 2017 Apr;28(2):131–9. Article / Publication DetailsFirst-Page Preview
Received: January 22, 2022
Accepted: March 15, 2022
Published online: April 14, 2022
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 3
Number of Tables: 3
ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ACY
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
留言 (0)