Factors affecting cervical cytological sample adequacy and interpretation

Factores que afectan la suficiencia e interpretación de la citología de cuello uterino

Objective: to evaluate factors that affect cervical cytological sample adequacy and interpretation. Materials and methods: a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted at Hospital Central “Dr. Urquinaona”, Maracaibo, Venezuela by a review of the gynecology and obstetrics outpatient clinic medical records and cervical smear reports from January to December 2019. The general characteristics and classification of the reports (as, satisfactory, satisfactory but limited by and not satisfactory for cytological evaluation), were analyzed. Results: out of 581 reports selected, 329 (56.6%) were satisfactory, 233 (40.1%) satisfactory but limited and 19 (3.3%) not satisfactory. A univariate analysis showed that not satisfactory samples, presence of symptoms at the time of collection and type of contraceptive method were significantly associated factors (p < 0.0001). Those influencing an abnormal result were satisfactory smears (odds ratio, 4.78; confidence interval 95%, 3.127-8.136) and the presence of symptoms (odds ratio, 11.652; confidence interval 95%, 2.992-38.55). This association remained significant after considering other variables such as age, parity, age at first Pap smear and contraceptive method (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: cytological sample adequacy is an important factor for identifying cell abnormalities and avoiding false negative results which delay cancer detection.

1. Romli R, Shahabudin S, Saddki N, Mokhtar N. Cervical cancer and pap smear screening: knowledge, attitude and practice among working women in northern state of Malaysia. Med J Malaysia. 2019;74(1):8-14.
2. Alwahaibi N, Alsalami W, Alramadhani N, Alzaabi A. Factors influencing knowledge and practice regarding cervical cancer and pap smear testing among Omani women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018;19(12):3367-3374. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2018.19.12.3367
3. Rahnama P, Faghihzadeh S, Ziaei S. Effect of the sampling sequence on the quality of Papanicolaou smear. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15(1):66-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1048-891x.2005.14412.x
4. Rocha VSO, Malfacini SDS, Gomes AM, Rocha CRMD. External quality monitoring of the cervical cytopathological exams in the Rio de Janeiro City. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018;40(6):338-346. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1657755.
5. Moore D, Pugh-Cain D, Walker T. Cervical smear adequacy: cellularity references were found to increase both interobserver agreement and unsatisfactory rate. Cytopathology. 2009;20(3):161-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2008.00605.x.
6. Redmond M, Ockochinski L, Kay E, Nixon S, McBrearty P, Leader M, Grace A. The difficulty with audit of high-grade cervical cytology in the absence of a national screening programme. Ir Med J. 2008;101(6):175-7.
7. Cernescu EC, Anton G, Ruţă S, Cernescu C. The effectiveness of cytological rescreening in the reduction of false negative/positive Pap reports. Roum Arch Microbiol Immunol. 2013;72(2):93-104.
8. Rebolj M, Rask J, van Ballegooijen M, Kirschner B, Rozemeijer K, Bonde J, Rygaard C, Lynge E. Cervical histology after routine ThinPrep or SurePath liquid-based cytology and computer-assisted reading in Denmark. Br J Cancer. 2015;113(9):1259-74. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.339.
9. Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo US, Ng AW. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer. 2003;99(6):331-5. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11786
10. Parnpoonsarp W, Ploarsa P, Arpakorn V. Effect of the size of extended, modified Ayre's spatula on endocervical cell yield in the postmenopausal women. J Med Assoc Thai. 2009;92 Suppl 3:S9-14.
11. Rowe LR, Marshall CJ, Berry M, Larson MA, Bentz JS. Accuracy of a slide profiler for endocervical cell detection in no-further-review conventional Pap smears. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(4):602-4. doi: 10.1159/000326575
12. Abdali K, Soleimani M, Khajehei M, Tabatabaee HR, Komar PV, Montazer NR. Comparison of Pap smear quality with anatomical spatula and convenience (spatula-cytobrush) methods: a single blind clinical trial. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11(6):1769-72.
13. Ivanov S. Cytological screening--the technique of cytological specimen taking and its influence on the quality of the method. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2007;46(8):26-7.
14. Uyar DS, Eltabbakh GH, Mount SL. Positive predictive value of liquid-based and conventional cervical Papanicolaou smears reported as malignant. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;89(2):227-32. doi: 10.1016/s0090-8258(02)00102-6
15. Randolph ML, Wu HH, Crabtree WN. Reprocessing unsatisfactory ThinPrep papanicolaou tests using a modified SurePath preparation technique. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122(5):343-8. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21408
16. Longatto Filho A, Pereira SM, Di Loreto C, Utagawa ML, Makabe S, Sakamoto Maeda MY, Marques JA, Santoro CL, Castelo A. DCS liquid-based system is more effective than conventional smears to diagnosis of cervical lesions: study in high-risk population with biopsy-based confirmation. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97(2):497-500. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.01.013
17. Mayeaux EJ Jr, Novetsky AP, Chelmow D, Garcia F, Choma K, Liu AH, et al. ASCCP Colposcopy Standards: Colposcopy Quality Improvement Recommendations for the United States. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017;21(4):242-248. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000342.
18. Pandey D, Shetty J, Sambhaji C, Saxena PU, Mishra D, Chawla A. Cervical Cancer as a silent killer: A rare case report with review of literature. J Cancer Res Ther. 2015;11(3):653. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.137997.
19. Kotaska AJ, Matisic JP. Cervical cleaning improves Pap smear quality. CMAJ. 2003;169(7):666-9.
20. Kavoussi SK, Smith YR, Ernst SD, Quint EH. Cervical cancer screening with liquid cytology in women with developmental disabilities. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2009;18(1):115-8. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2008.0795.
21. Gupta N, Bhar VS, Rajwanshi A, Suri V. Unsatisfactory rate in liquid-based cervical samples as compared to conventional smears: A study from tertiary care hospital. Cytojournal. 2016;13:14. doi: 10.4103/1742-6413.183831.