medigraphic.com
ISSN 0016-3813 (Print)

2002, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Gac Med Mex 2002; 138 (3)

Vaginal Cytology: The Importance of the Transformation Zone and How to Obtain an Adequate Sample.

Curiel-Valdés JJ

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 259-266
PDF size: 174.22 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Cytology smear is the test most frequently used to detect cancer of the uterine cervix. Much is written concerning it in its three phases, analytical, post-analytical, and pre-analytical; the later implies sampling and preservation and is the purpose of this review. According to the national literature, result of the sampling is deficient in 64% of cases. Many instruments have been developed to take good samples, and statistically there is no difference between these in terms of achieving the goal of taking a good sample; despite this in Mexico bad samples persist. In this paper it is analyzed the source of these errors that are principally from ignoring the anatomy of the cervix, the handling and fixation of the sample, among others, and some observations are made that are not described in other articles in the same field. Some of the most popular instruments available in Mexico to take samples are the endocervical brush, spatula, and brush (Pappette) here described; their advantages and disadvantages are included, according to the type of cervix in which is going to be used, stressing some details concerning the transformation zone and how to select the best instrument. The results improved with these observations from 45 to 77% in taking good samples.


REFERENCES

  1. Sherman M, Mendoza M, Lee K, Ashfaq R, Birdsong G, Corkill M, Mclntosh K, Inhom S, Zahniser, Barber G, Barber C, Stoler. Performance of liquid-based, thin-layer cervical cytology: correlation with reference diagnoses and human papilloma virus testing. M. Mod Pathol 1998;11:837-43.

  2. Lazcano Ponce EC, Alonso de Ruiz P, López Carrillo L, Vázquez Manriquez ME, Hernández Avila M. Índice de calidad en citología en una muestra probabilística en la Ciudad de México. Patología 1992;30:201-203.

  3. Lazcano Ponce EC, Alonso de Ruiz P, Martínez Arias C, Murguia Riechers L. Concordancia diagnóstica en citología ginecológica. Rev. lnvest. Clin 1997;49:11-116.

  4. Milla Villeda RH. Carta al editor Ginecología y Obstetricia de México 1998;66:351.

  5. Ahued A JR. Citología vaginal Ed. Ginecol Obstet Méx 1997;65:227-228.

  6. Lazcano Ponce EC, Alonso de Ruiz P, López Carrillo L, Najera Aguilar P, Avila Cisneros R, Escandón Romero C, Cisneros MT, Hernández Avila M. Validity and reproducibility of cytologic diagnosis in a sample of cervical screening centres in México. Acta Cytol 1997;41:277-284.

  7. Curiel Valdés JJ, Briones J. Mundo Médico 1996;23:67-69.

  8. Curiel Valdés JJ. Simple methodology for improving cervical-uterine samples. en prensa

  9. Papanicolaou G. New Cancer Diagnosis. Third Race Batterment Conference in Battle Creeck, Mich. 1928.

  10. The 1991 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute Workshop, April 29-31,1991.

  11. Kurman RK, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.

  12. Sherman ME, Weinstein M, Sughayer M, Cappellari JO, Orr JE, Erozan YS, Schiffman MH, Kurman RJ. The Bethesda System. Impact on reporting cervicovaginal specimens and reproducibility of criteria for assessing endocervical sampling. Acta Cytol 1993:37:55-60.

  13. Rapid communication. The Bethesda System for reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses: report on the 1991 Bethesda workshop. JAMA 1992:267:1892.

  14. Registro histopatológico de Neoplasias en México Ssa, Dirección General de Epidemiología J GH Editores 1999.

  15. Ayre JG. The vaginal Smear “precancer” cell studies using a modified technic. Am J ObstetGynecol 1949:58:1205-1219.

  16. Broso P, Ruffetti G, Fabbrini T, Francone P, Orlassino R. The unicum and cytobrush plus spatula for cervical cytologic sampling: a comparison. Acta Cytol 1 996;40:222-5.

  17. Metcalf KS, Sutton J, Moloney MD, Brown LA, Peel KR, Baines A. Which cervical sampler? A comparison of four methods. Cytopathology 1994;5:219-25.

  18. Chakiabarti S, Guijon FB, Paraskevas M. Brush vs. spatula for cervical smears. Histologic correlation with concurrent biopsies. Acta Cytol 1994;38:315-8

  19. Cannon JM, Blythe JG. Comparison of the cytobrush plus plastic spatula with the cervex brush for obtaining endocervical cells. Obstet Gynecol 1993 Oct;82:569-72.

  20. Curiel Valdés JJ. Detección citológica de virus del papiloma humano y su correlación con PCR: estudio prospectivo de 55 casos. Rev. Mex. Pat. Clin 1999:46:74-78.

  21. II Congreso Internacional de colposcopía Ciudad de México septiembre 2000, CMN Siglo XXI.

  22. Observación personal del autor.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com