Utility of Pipet Curet cytology and biopsy as a diagnostic method for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma.

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q3 PATHOLOGY Acta Cytologica Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1159/000541279

Makiko Kurata, Takuma Tajiri, Masataka Ueda, Chie Inomoto, Tomoko Sugiyama, Hirotaka Fujita, Nozomi Nomura, Tomohisa Machida, Tetsuji Iida, Ippei Ooiwa, Yoshihiro Nishijima, Hiroshi Kajiwara, Toshinari Muramatsu, Naoya Nakamura

{"title":"Utility of Pipet Curet cytology and biopsy as a diagnostic method for endometrial endometrioid carcinoma.","authors":"Makiko Kurata, Takuma Tajiri, Masataka Ueda, Chie Inomoto, Tomoko Sugiyama, Hirotaka Fujita, Nozomi Nomura, Tomohisa Machida, Tetsuji Iida, Ippei Ooiwa, Yoshihiro Nishijima, Hiroshi Kajiwara, Toshinari Muramatsu, Naoya Nakamura","doi":"10.1159/000541279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: We aimed to determine the utility of Pipet Curet™ cytology (PCC) and Pipet Curet biopsy (PCB) for diagnosing uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC).Methods: We divided 77 patients with EEC into two groups per Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grades: G1 (n = 44) and G2/3 (n = 33), and compared the diagnostic sensitivity of PCC, PCB, and PCC & PCB combined, retrospectively. Next, we investigated any diagnostic discordance between PCC-based and PCB-based diagnoses per FIGO grade group.Results: The diagnostic sensitivity of PCC, PCB, and the two modalities combined was significantly higher for G2/3 EECs than for G1 EECs (72.7% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.0209; 84.8% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.0434; and 93.9% vs.65.9%, p = 0.0046, respectively), likely due to more friable cancer cells in higher grade EEC cases. Among our 77 EEC patients, there were four patients (5.19%) with PCC-based concordant but PCB-based discordant results against EEC, in the G2/3 group predominantly. Diagnostic sensitivity of all cases increased from 72.7% (56/77) by PCB alone to 77.9% (60/77) by use of both modalities combined.Conclusion: Cytologic evaluation can reduce the number of false-negative histologic diagnoses. By providing complementary information, the two modalities combined from the Pipet Curet procedure would be valuable as a diagnostic method for EEC.","PeriodicalId":6959,"journal":{"name":"Acta Cytologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Cytologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000541279","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to determine the utility of Pipet Curet™ cytology (PCC) and Pipet Curet biopsy (PCB) for diagnosing uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC).

Methods: We divided 77 patients with EEC into two groups per Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grades: G1 (n = 44) and G2/3 (n = 33), and compared the diagnostic sensitivity of PCC, PCB, and PCC & PCB combined, retrospectively. Next, we investigated any diagnostic discordance between PCC-based and PCB-based diagnoses per FIGO grade group.

Results: The diagnostic sensitivity of PCC, PCB, and the two modalities combined was significantly higher for G2/3 EECs than for G1 EECs (72.7% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.0209; 84.8% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.0434; and 93.9% vs.65.9%, p = 0.0046, respectively), likely due to more friable cancer cells in higher grade EEC cases. Among our 77 EEC patients, there were four patients (5.19%) with PCC-based concordant but PCB-based discordant results against EEC, in the G2/3 group predominantly. Diagnostic sensitivity of all cases increased from 72.7% (56/77) by PCB alone to 77.9% (60/77) by use of both modalities combined.

Conclusion: Cytologic evaluation can reduce the number of false-negative histologic diagnoses. By providing complementary information, the two modalities combined from the Pipet Curet procedure would be valuable as a diagnostic method for EEC.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Pipet Curet 细胞学和活组织切片检查作为子宫内膜样癌诊断方法的实用性。

简介：我们旨在确定 Pipet Curet™ 细胞学（PCC）和 Pipet Curet 活检（PCB）对诊断子宫内膜子宫内膜样癌（EEC）的实用性：我们按照妇产科联盟（FIGO）的分级将77名EEC患者分为两组：G1（44人）和G2/3（33人），并回顾性比较了PCC、PCB和PCC & PCB组合的诊断灵敏度。接下来，我们调查了基于 PCC 和基于 PCB 的诊断在每个 FIGO 分级组别中的不一致性：结果：PCC、PCB 和两种模式联合诊断 G2/3 EEC 的敏感性明显高于 G1 EEC（分别为 72.7% vs. 45.5%，p = 0.0209；84.8% vs. 63.6%，p = 0.0434；93.9% vs. 65.9%，p = 0.0046），这可能是由于高等级 EEC 病例的癌细胞更易碎。在 77 例 EEC 患者中，有 4 例患者（5.19%）的 PCC 结果与 EEC 一致，但 PCB 结果与 EEC 不一致，主要集中在 G2/3 组。所有病例的诊断灵敏度从单独使用 PCB 的 72.7%（56/77）上升到联合使用两种方法的 77.9%（60/77）：结论：细胞学评估可减少假阴性组织学诊断的数量。通过提供互补信息，Pipet Curet 程序中的两种模式相结合，将成为一种有价值的 EEC 诊断方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Acta Cytologica 生物-病理学

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

11.10%

发文量

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： With articles offering an excellent balance between clinical cytology and cytopathology, ''Acta Cytologica'' fosters the understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms behind cytomorphology and thus facilitates the translation of frontline research into clinical practice. As the official journal of the International Academy of Cytology and affiliated to over 50 national cytology societies around the world, ''Acta Cytologica'' evaluates new and existing diagnostic applications of scientific advances as well as their clinical correlations. Original papers, review articles, meta-analyses, novel insights from clinical practice, and letters to the editor cover topics from diagnostic cytopathology, gynecologic and non-gynecologic cytopathology to fine needle aspiration, molecular techniques and their diagnostic applications. As the perfect reference for practical use, ''Acta Cytologica'' addresses a multidisciplinary audience practicing clinical cytopathology, cell biology, oncology, interventional radiology, otorhinolaryngology, gastroenterology, urology, pulmonology and preventive medicine.