Limits...
Should LSIL with ASC-H (LSIL-H) in cervical smears be an independent category? A study on SurePath specimens with review of literature.

Shidham VB, Kumar N, Narayan R, Brotzman GL - Cytojournal (2007)

Bottom Line: The status of HPV DNA testing was also noted in some LSIL-H cases with biopsy results.Biopsy results were grouped into A. negative for dysplasia (ND), B. low grade (HPV, CIN1, CIN1 with HPV), and C. high grade (CIN 2 and above).The positive predictive values for various biopsy results in relation to initial cytopathologic interpretation were: a.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. vshidham@mcw.edu

ABSTRACT

Background: Cervical smears exhibiting unequivocal features of 'low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion' (LSIL) are occasionally also admixed with some cells suspicious for, but not diagnostic of, 'high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion' (HSIL). Only a few studies, mostly reported as abstracts, have evaluated this concurrence. In this study, we evaluate the current evidence that favors a distinct category for "LSIL, cannot exclude HSIL" (LSIL-H), and suggest a management algorithm based on combinations of current ASCCP guidelines for related interpretations.

Methods: We studied SurePath preparations of cervical specimens from various institutions during one year period. Cytohisto correlation was performed in cases with cervical biopsies submitted to our institution. The status of HPV DNA testing was also noted in some LSIL-H cases with biopsy results.

Results: Out of 77,979 cases 1,970 interpreted as LSIL (1,523), LSIL-H (146), 'atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude HSIL' (ASC-H) (109), and HSIL (192) were selected. Concurrent biopsy results were available in 40% (Total 792 cases: 557 LSIL, 88 LSIL-H, 38 ASCH, and 109 HSIL). Biopsy results were grouped into A. negative for dysplasia (ND), B. low grade (HPV, CIN1, CIN1 with HPV), and C. high grade (CIN 2 and above). The positive predictive values for various biopsy results in relation to initial cytopathologic interpretation were: a. LSIL: (557 cases): ND 32% (179), low grade 58% (323), high grade 10% (55); b. LSIL-H: (88 cases): ND 24% (21), low grade 43% (38), high grade 33% (29); c. ASCH: (38 cases): ND 32% (12), low grade- 37% (14), high grade- 31% (12); d. HSIL (109 cases): ND 5% (6), low grade 26% (28), high grade 69% (75). The patterns of cervical biopsy results in cases reported as LSIL-H were compared with that observed in cases with LSIL, ASC-H, and HSIL. 94% (32 of 34) of LSIL-H were positive for high risk (HR) HPV, 1 was negative for HR HPV but positive for low risk (LR), and 1 LSIL-H was negative for HR and LR both.

Conclusion: LSIL-H overlapped with LSIL and ASC-H, but was distinct from HSIL. A management algorithm comparable to ASC-H and HSIL appears to be appropriate in LSIL-H cases.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Suggested Management algorithm of Women with LSIL-H*. ┬žDiagnostic excisional procedure- Sampling of transformation zone and endocervical canal for histological evaluation with laser conization, cold-knife conization, loop electrosurgical excision (LEEP), and loop electrosurgical conization.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC1851019&req=5

Figure 5: Suggested Management algorithm of Women with LSIL-H*. ┬žDiagnostic excisional procedure- Sampling of transformation zone and endocervical canal for histological evaluation with laser conization, cold-knife conization, loop electrosurgical excision (LEEP), and loop electrosurgical conization.

Mentions: The management of LSIL-H cases has not been addressed currently by the ASCCP guidelines [6,22-25]. Based on the biopsy pattern in this study and review of the literature, the initial management may be similar to that of LSIL with referral to colposcopy [6,7], but the subsequent approach may be comparable to HSIL (and ASC-H) (Figure 5). Or, the management may be entirely similar to ASC-H. Some of the issues to be considered while planning management guidelines include: A. How to manage patients with negative or unsatisfactory colposcopy results? B. Would a conservative approach similar to LSIL or ASC-H cases be optimum? C. Should endocervical sampling be obtained if the colposcopic examination is satisfactory? D. Would a cone biopsy similar to HSIL cases ever be indicated in evaluation of LSIL-H category?


Should LSIL with ASC-H (LSIL-H) in cervical smears be an independent category? A study on SurePath specimens with review of literature.

Shidham VB, Kumar N, Narayan R, Brotzman GL - Cytojournal (2007)

Suggested Management algorithm of Women with LSIL-H*. ┬žDiagnostic excisional procedure- Sampling of transformation zone and endocervical canal for histological evaluation with laser conization, cold-knife conization, loop electrosurgical excision (LEEP), and loop electrosurgical conization.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC1851019&req=5

Figure 5: Suggested Management algorithm of Women with LSIL-H*. ┬žDiagnostic excisional procedure- Sampling of transformation zone and endocervical canal for histological evaluation with laser conization, cold-knife conization, loop electrosurgical excision (LEEP), and loop electrosurgical conization.
Mentions: The management of LSIL-H cases has not been addressed currently by the ASCCP guidelines [6,22-25]. Based on the biopsy pattern in this study and review of the literature, the initial management may be similar to that of LSIL with referral to colposcopy [6,7], but the subsequent approach may be comparable to HSIL (and ASC-H) (Figure 5). Or, the management may be entirely similar to ASC-H. Some of the issues to be considered while planning management guidelines include: A. How to manage patients with negative or unsatisfactory colposcopy results? B. Would a conservative approach similar to LSIL or ASC-H cases be optimum? C. Should endocervical sampling be obtained if the colposcopic examination is satisfactory? D. Would a cone biopsy similar to HSIL cases ever be indicated in evaluation of LSIL-H category?

Bottom Line: The status of HPV DNA testing was also noted in some LSIL-H cases with biopsy results.Biopsy results were grouped into A. negative for dysplasia (ND), B. low grade (HPV, CIN1, CIN1 with HPV), and C. high grade (CIN 2 and above).The positive predictive values for various biopsy results in relation to initial cytopathologic interpretation were: a.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. vshidham@mcw.edu

ABSTRACT

Background: Cervical smears exhibiting unequivocal features of 'low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion' (LSIL) are occasionally also admixed with some cells suspicious for, but not diagnostic of, 'high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion' (HSIL). Only a few studies, mostly reported as abstracts, have evaluated this concurrence. In this study, we evaluate the current evidence that favors a distinct category for "LSIL, cannot exclude HSIL" (LSIL-H), and suggest a management algorithm based on combinations of current ASCCP guidelines for related interpretations.

Methods: We studied SurePath preparations of cervical specimens from various institutions during one year period. Cytohisto correlation was performed in cases with cervical biopsies submitted to our institution. The status of HPV DNA testing was also noted in some LSIL-H cases with biopsy results.

Results: Out of 77,979 cases 1,970 interpreted as LSIL (1,523), LSIL-H (146), 'atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude HSIL' (ASC-H) (109), and HSIL (192) were selected. Concurrent biopsy results were available in 40% (Total 792 cases: 557 LSIL, 88 LSIL-H, 38 ASCH, and 109 HSIL). Biopsy results were grouped into A. negative for dysplasia (ND), B. low grade (HPV, CIN1, CIN1 with HPV), and C. high grade (CIN 2 and above). The positive predictive values for various biopsy results in relation to initial cytopathologic interpretation were: a. LSIL: (557 cases): ND 32% (179), low grade 58% (323), high grade 10% (55); b. LSIL-H: (88 cases): ND 24% (21), low grade 43% (38), high grade 33% (29); c. ASCH: (38 cases): ND 32% (12), low grade- 37% (14), high grade- 31% (12); d. HSIL (109 cases): ND 5% (6), low grade 26% (28), high grade 69% (75). The patterns of cervical biopsy results in cases reported as LSIL-H were compared with that observed in cases with LSIL, ASC-H, and HSIL. 94% (32 of 34) of LSIL-H were positive for high risk (HR) HPV, 1 was negative for HR HPV but positive for low risk (LR), and 1 LSIL-H was negative for HR and LR both.

Conclusion: LSIL-H overlapped with LSIL and ASC-H, but was distinct from HSIL. A management algorithm comparable to ASC-H and HSIL appears to be appropriate in LSIL-H cases.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus