Evaluation of cervicovaginal smear results at postmenopausal period

Sefa Kelekci, Emre Destegül, Servet Gençdal, Emre Ekmekçi, Hüseyin Aydoğmuş, Orçun Özdemir

Abstract


This study evaluates the statistical analysis of cervicovaginal smear results at postmenopausal period accompanied by literature. Cervicovaginal smear results of 894 postmenopausal women were evaluated retrospectively according to the 2001 Bethesda system (BS) in Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic from 2007–2010. The study found, normal results on 287 patients (32.1%), benign findings on 556 patients (62.2%), abnormal epithelial cell changes on 48 patients (5.36%) and malignant changes on 3 patients (0.33%). The abnormal epithelial changes were observed to be atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) for 22 patients (2.46%), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) for 11 patients (1.23%), high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) for 7 patients (0.78%), findings that cannot exclude a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) for 6 patients (0.55%) and atypical glandular cells-not otherwise specified (AGC-NOS) for 2 patients (0.22%). Malignant results were 2 squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) (0.22%) and 1 adenocarcinoma (ACC) (0.11%). Cervical cancer screening programs should be expanded and Pap smear screening should be applied to all postmenopausal women. The longer time span involved from premalignant lesions to cancer improves our chance for the diagnosis and treatment. As the incidence of invasive cancer increases in menopausal period, gynecological smear examination and regular check-up are crucial. A high rate of abnormalities of epithelial cells was detected in this study.

Keywords


pap smear; cytology; bethesda system; epithelial cell abnormalities

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ozan H. Pap smear: Ne zaman? Nasıl? Kimden? (Turkish) [Pap smear: When? How? From whom?] Türk jinekologi ve obstetrik dernegi (TJOD): Uzmanlık sonrası eğitim ve güncel gelişmeler dergesi TJOD 2005; 2: 35–40.

Ersöz Ş, Reis A, Baki N. Trabzon ilinde servikal tarama programı (Turkish) [Cervical screening program in Trabzon province]. Türk Jinekolojik Onkoloji Dergisi 2010; 7: 35–39.

Wilson CM, Tobin S, Young RC. The exploding worldwide cancer burden: The impact of cancer on women. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2004; 14(1): 1–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1048-891x.2004.14178.x.

Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. 1941. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997; 121(3): 211–224.

Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989; 261(5): 737–743. doi: 10.1001/jama.1989.03420050087046.

Kuo DY, Goldberg GL. Screening of cervical cancer: Where do we go from here? Cancer Invest 2003; 21(1): 157–161. doi: 10.1081/CNV-120016410.

Datta SD, Koutsky LA, Ratelle S, Unger ER, Shlay J, McClain T, Weaver B, Kerndt P, Zenilman J, Hagensee M, Suhr CJ, Weinstock H. Human papilloma virus infection and cervical cytology in women screened for cervical cancer in the United States, 2003–2005. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 493–500. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-7-200804010-00004.

Rakel Re. The periodic health examination. In: Grimin KJ, Diebold MM, (editors). Textbook of family practice. 6th ed. USA: WB Saunders Company; 2002. p. 159–182.

Kir G. Bethesda 2001. Türkiye’de servikovajinal sitolojinin yeri ve limitasyonlari (Turkish) [The role and limitations of cervicovaginal cytology]. Ümraniye Tip Dergisi 2008; 1(1): 20–23.

Türk Saglık Bakanlığı, kanser kayıt istatistikleri 2004–2006 (Turkish) [The Turkish Ministry of Health, cancer registry statistics 2004–2006]. Available from: http://kanser.gov.tr/.

Fonn S, Bloch B, Mabina M, Carpenter S, Cronje H, Maise C, Bennun M, du Toit G, de Jonge E, Manana I, Lindeque G. Prevalence of pre-cancerous lesions and cervical cancer in South Africa–A multicentre study. S Afr Med J 2002; 92(2):148–156.

Insinga RP, Glass AG, Rush BB. Diagnoses and outcomes in cervical cancer screening: A population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191(1): 105–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.01.043.

Dağli AF, Özercan MR. Servikal smear tarama programımızda sınırlılık/yetersizlik oranları ve nedenleri (1322 olgu) (Turkish) [Cervical smear screening program has limitations/disability rates and causes (1322 cases)]. Firat Tip Dergisi 2006; 11(3): 166–169.

Karabacak T, Aydın Ö, Düşmez D, Polat A, Cinel A, Eğilmez R. Servikovajinal smearlerde sınırlılık/yetersizlik oranları ve nedenleri (2832 olgu) (Turkish) [Limitation, inadequacy rates and reasons in cervicovaginal smears (2832 cases)]. Patoloji Bülteni 2001; 18(3): 22–25.

Dresang LT. Colposcopy: An evidence-based update. J Am Board Fam Pract 2005; 18(5): 383–392. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.18.5.383.

Sigurdsson K, Sigvaldason H. Longitudinal trends in cervical cytological lesions and the effect of risk factors: A 30-year overview. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85(3): 350–358. doi: 10.1080/00016340500432465.

Arbyn M, Van Nieuwenhuyse A, Bogers J, De Jonge E, De Beeck LO, Matheï C, Buntinx F. Cytological screening for cervical cancer in the province of Limburg, Belgium. Eur J Cancer Prev 2011; 20(1): 18–24. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32833ecbc6.

Deshou H, Changhua W, Qinyan L, Wei L, Wen F. Clinical utility of Liqui-PREP™ cytology system for primary cervical cancer screening in a large urban hospital setting in China. J Cytol 2009; 26(1): 20–25. doi: 10.4103/0970-9371.54863.

Burger RA, Creasman WT, Di Saia PJ, Monk BJ, Mutch DG. İnvazivs serviks kanseri. In: Di Saia PJ, Creasman WT, (editors). Klinik jinekolojik onkoloji. 6th ed. (Turkish) [Invasive cervical cancer]. Ankara: Güneş Kitabevi; 2003. p. 53–111.

Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Shah M, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2011: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61(1): 8–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.20096.

ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin no. 109: Cervical cytology screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114(6): 1409–1420. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c6f8a4.

Baldauff JJ, Ritter J. Comparison of the risk of cytologic surveillance of women with a typical cells or low-grade abnormalities on cervical smear: Review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1988; 76(2): 193–199. doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(97)00171.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30564/amor.v2i1.32

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Sefa Kelekci, Emre Destegül, Servet Gençdal, Emre Ekmekçi, Hüseyin Aydoğmuş, Orçun Özdemir

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.