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

Factors affecting cervical cytological sample adequacy and interpretation

Objetivo: evaluar los factores que afectan la suficiencia e interpretación de la citología de cuello uterino. Materiales y métodos: estudio transversal y retrospectivo en el Hospital Central “Dr. Urquinaona”, Maracaibo, Venezuela con la revisión de las historias clínicas e informes de las citologías de cuello uterino de la consulta de ginecología y obstetricia de enero a diciembre 2019. Se analizan las características generales y la clasificación de los informes (satisfactorios para la evaluación, satisfactorios pero limitados por y no satisfactorios). Resultados: se seleccionaron 581 informes de los cuales 329 (56,6%) eran muestras satisfactorias, 233 (40,1%) satisfactorias pero limitadas y 19 (3,3%) insatisfactorios. El análisis univariante demostró que la muestra insatisfactoria, la presencia síntomas al momento de la toma y el tipo de método anticonceptivo fueron factores que se asociaron significativamente (p < 0,0001). Los que influyeron para un resultado anormal de la citología cervical fueron frotis satisfactorio (razón de probabilidad, 4,78; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 3,127-8,136) y presencia de síntomas (razón de probabilidad, 11,652; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 2,992-38,55). Esta asociación continuó siendo significativa luego de ajustarlos a los factores de edad, paridad, edad al momento de la toma de la primera citología y método de anticoncepción (p < 0,0001). Conclusión: la suficiencia de la muestra de citología es un factor importante para la detección de anomalías celulares de cuello uterino y evitar resultados falsos negativos, retrasando la detección del cáncer.

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.