SavedAdd your journal

Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2016 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of the Histologic Results of Atypical Glandular Cells- Favor Neoplasia and Atypical Glandular Cells-Not Otherwise Specified

M. Alper KARALÖK
ÖZGÜR KOÇAK
Tolga TAŞÇI
Bülent YİRCİ
Işın ÜREYEN
Sevgi KOÇ
A Taner TURAN
H GÖKHAN TULUNAY
Pages
27–31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

To be older than 35 years oldseems to increase the risk of malignancy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: Cervical cancer screening programs are widely performed in all around the world.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 122 women had screening tests reported as "atypical glandular cells" between 2003and 2013 at the Ministry of Health, Etlik Maternity and Women's Health Teaching Research.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:To be older than 35 years oldseems to increase the risk of malignancy.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Cervical cancer screening programs are widely performed in all around the world. The interpretation of the Pap smear test is a big challenge in gynecology practice particularly when associatedwith atypical glandular cells. In this study, we performed a retrospective analysis of cytologic results associated with atypical glandular cells in our institution.MATERIAL AND METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed Pap smear tests resulted as "atypical glandular cells". A total of 122 women had screening tests reported as "atypical glandular cells" between 2003and 2013 at the Ministry of Health, Etlik Maternity and Women's Health Teaching Research. The cytology reported as "atypical glandular cells" were evaluated in two main groups: Atypical glandular cellsfavor neoplasia (AGC-FN) and atypical glandular cells-not otherwise specified (AGC-NOS) compared bymeans of histologic results.RESULTS: Thirty-two women have been reported as AGC-NOS on cytologic examination and 90women were defined as AGC-FN. There was no significant difference between AGC-FN and AGC NOSgroups in terms of age. In AGC-FN group, a total of 13 women (13/90) (14.4%) had malignant histological diagnosis. In AGC-NOS group only one woman (1/32) (3.1%) was diagnosed as malignant. All themalignant cases in this study are older than 35 years.CONCLUSION: The incidence of AGC is less than 1% in all Pap smear examinations. Two main factorswere important in the outcome of the AGC. The first one is the subgroup. AGC-FN group has a higherrisk of malignancy. The second important factor is the age of the patient. To be older than 35 years oldseems to increase the risk of malignancy.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARALÖK, M. A., KOÇAK, Ö., TAŞÇI, T., YİRCİ, B., ÜREYEN, I., KOÇ, S., TURAN, A. T., TULUNAY, H. G. (2016). Comparison of the Histologic Results of Atypical Glandular Cells- Favor Neoplasia and Atypical Glandular Cells-Not Otherwise Specified. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 1, 27–31. https://ajindex.com/articles/226994

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Laara E, Day NE, Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes. Lancet 1987;1:1247-9.
  2. Gien LT, Beauchemin MC, Thomas G. Adenocarcinoma: a unique cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2010;116:140-6.
  3. Wang SS, Sherman ME, Hildesheim A, et al. Cervical ade- nocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976-2000. Cancer 2004;100:1035-44
  4. Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR, et al. The rising inci- dence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carci- noma of the uterine cervix in the United States-a 24-year populationbased study. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78:97-105.
  5. Kinney W, Sawaya G, Sung H, et al. Stage at diagnosis and mortality in patients with adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix diagnosed as a consequence of cytologic screening. Acta Cytol 2003; 47:167-71.
  6. Van DT, Haque M, Lucci JA III, et al. Management of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance pap smears: a reappraisal. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2003;7:11-5.
  7. Schorge JO, Rauh-Hain JA. Atypical glandular cells. Clini cal Obstet Gynecol 2013;56:35-43
  8. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical screen- ing tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2007;11:201-2. Dunton CJ. Management of atypical glandular cells and adenocarcinoma in situ. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2008;35:623-32. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cerval/vaginal cy- tologic diagnoses: developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute workshop in Bethesda, MD, December 12-13,1988. Diagn Cytopathol 1989;5(3):331-4. Broder S. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/ Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses-Report of the 1991 Bethesda Workshop. Cancer 1992;69:3020 Nayar R, Solomon D. Second edition of "The Bethesda System for reporting cervical cytology" - Atlas, website, and Bethesda interobserver reproducibility project. Cyto Journal 2004;1:4 Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cer- vical cytology. JAMA 2002;287(16):2114-19
  9. Apgar BS, Zoschnick L, Wright TC. The 2001 Bethesda System terminology. Am Fam Physician 2003;68(10): 1992-8.
  10. Wright Jr TC, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. ASCCP Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA