{"title":"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。","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":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We aimed to determine the utility of Pipet Curet cytology (PCC) and Pipet Curet biopsy (PCB) for diagnosing uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 and PCB combined, retrospectively. Next, we investigated any diagnostic discordance between PCC-based and PCB-based diagnoses per FIGO grade group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 4 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":6959,"journal":{"name":"Acta Cytologica","volume":" ","pages":"413-422"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We aimed to determine the utility of Pipet Curet cytology (PCC) and Pipet Curet biopsy (PCB) for diagnosing uterine endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (EEC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 and PCB combined, retrospectively. Next, we investigated any diagnostic discordance between PCC-based and PCB-based diagnoses per FIGO grade group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 4 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Cytologica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"413-422\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"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\":\"2024/9/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2024/9/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Utility of Pipet Curet Cytology and Biopsy as a Diagnostic Method for Endometrial Endometrioid Carcinoma.
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 and 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 4 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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
