Evaluation of cellular adequacy in endometrial liquid‐based cytology
Rattachement africain : jp. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated cellular adequacy in endometrial liquid-based cytology (LBC) specimens. METHODS: In total, 1267 cases were obtained and the rate of unsatisfactory specimen and diagnostic accuracy for malignancy were assessed. If ≥10 cellular clusters composed of ≤30 endometrial cells were found per specimen, then the sample was provisionally considered adequate. RESULTS: The unsatisfactory rate (with fewer than 10 clusters) was 15.4%. Diagnostic accuracy in specimens with ≥10 clusters was significantly higher (90.5% vs 36.4%) than that in specimens with fewer than10 clusters. Moreover, the unsatisfactory rate in patients aged ≥60 years was significantly higher (33.8% vs 13.2%) than that in patients younger than 60 years. Although the unsatisfactory rate was decreased, significant differences were not found between cases with fewer than five clusters (22.6%) and fewer than 10 clusters (33.8%) in patients aged ≥60 years. Diagnostic accuracy in cases with five or more clusters was significantly higher (90.3% vs 0%) than that in cases with fewer than five clusters. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that ≥10 clusters with ≥30 endometrial cells per cluster could be used as a specimen adequacy criterion for endometrial LBC. If ≥10 clusters cannot be found in patients aged ≥60 years, then the use of the alternative criterion of five or more clusters may yield satisfactory specimen adequacy.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Evaluation of cellular adequacy in endometrial liquid‐based cytology
- Date Crossref
- 21/06/2019
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Tokyo Women's Medical University Department of Surgical Pathology pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Kitasato Institute Hospital Department of Gynecology pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Kitasato University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Ehime Prefectural University of Health Science Department of Medical Technology pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Suzuka University of Medical Science pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Suzuka University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Suzuka Kosei Hospital pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Dokkyo Medical University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Osaka Health Science University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
The University of Osaka pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Faculty of Medicine Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology JA Suzuka General Hospital Suzuka Mie Japan Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
Department of Surgical Pathology — Tokyo Women's Medical University, Department of Gynecology — Kitasato Institute Hospital et Kitasato University, avec 9 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.