๐”– Bobbio Scriptorium
โœฆ   LIBER   โœฆ

Retrospective analysis of non-correlating cervical smears and colposcopically directed biopsies

โœ Scribed by Mary K. Sidawy; Sumalee Siriaunkgul; Andra R. Frost


Book ID
102142166
Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
1994
Tongue
English
Weight
457 KB
Volume
11
Category
Article
ISSN
8755-1039

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

โœฆ Synopsis


Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cause of discrepancies between nonโ€correlating cytologic and histologic cervical samples. The biopsy results of 433 women examined colposcopically were compared to their referral cervical smears (RS). There was a discrepancy between the RS and the subsequent biopsy in 120 women (28%). One hundred of these 120 RS were available for review; and in each case, a reason for the discrepancy was established and classified as RS overcall, RS undercall, RS sampling error, or biopsy sampling error. Fiftyโ€one discrepant RS were overcalled. They were reported initially as condyloma (19), mild dysplasia (22), and moderate dysplasia (10). One RS was undercalled. Nine RS were not diagnostic of the biopsyโ€proven lesion due to smear sampling error. The discrepancies in the remaining 39 cases were due to biopsy sampling error. Twentyโ€one of these 39 cases had additional biopsies or smears that confirmed the presence of condyloma/dysplasia, and 18 had negative followโ€up. In summary, discrepancies were a result of pathologists' interpretative error, predominantly overcalls, in 52% of nonโ€correlating cases, and smear or biopsy sampling error in the remaining 48%. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:343โ€“347. ยฉ 1994 Wileyโ€Liss, Inc.


๐Ÿ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES