ThinPrep ve Konvansiyonel Yöntem ile Çalışılan Servikal Smear sonuçların Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Hastanemizde yapılmış olan servikal smear sonuçlarının yıllara ve hasta yaşına göre değerlendirilmesi, anormal sonuç oranlarının ve dağılımının araştırılması, kullanılan inceleme yöntemine göre sonuç dağılımında farklılık olup olmadığının belirlenmesi ve sonuçların ülkemiz epidemiyolojik verilerine katkıda bulunmasıdır.

Materyal ve Metot: 2010 Haziran-2014 Aralık tarihleri arasında Şişli Memorial Hastanesi jinekoloji polikliniğine başvuran ve servikal smear testi yapılan hastaların sonuçlarını retrospektif olarak analiz ettik. Çalışmamıza 21-65 yaş arası 32.617 hasta dahil edildi.

Bulgular: Olguların dağılımı incelendiğinde 29.831 (%91,5) olgunun patoloji sonucu normal, 1.713 olguda (%5,25) ASCUS, 135 olguda (%0,4) ASC-H, 21 olguda (%0,06) AGC, 767 olguda (%2,35) LSIL, 131 olguda (%0,4) HSIL, üç olguda adeno kanser ve iki olguda da skuamöz kanser tespit edilmiştir. Tüm olgular değerlendirildiğinde anormal sonuç oranımız %8,5 olarak saptanmıştır. LSIL (35,9±8,0 yıl) ve HSIL (34,4±7,2 yıl) olgularının anlamlı olarak daha genç yaşlarda olduğu saptandı.

Sonuç: Çalışmamızda, ThinPrep yöntemi ile yıllar bazında  prekanseröz lezyon saptanma oranlarında bir artış saptadık.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bethesda sistemi,Konvansiyonel yöntem,ThinPrep yöntemi,Servikal smear

The evaluation of Cervical Smear Results Assessed by ThinPrep and Conventional Methods

Abstract

Objective: Our aim was to evaluate cervical smear results according to years and patient age. We  investigated the abnormal outcome rates and distribution to determine whether there is any difference in smear results according to the examination method used and to contribute to the epidemiological data of our country.

Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the cervical smear test results of the patients who were admitted to gynecology outpatient clinic of Şişli Memorial Hospital between June 2010 and December 2014. 32.617 patients aged 21-65 years were included in our study.

Results: The pathology result was determined to be normal in 29.831 patients (91.5%). ASCUS, ASC-H and AGC were detected in 1.713 (5.25%), 135 (0.4%) and  21 (0.06%) patients respectively. LSIL was detected in 767 cases (2.35%), HSIL in 131 cases (0.4%), adeno cancer in three cases and squamous cancer in two cases. When all the cases were evaluated, the rate of abnormal results was found to be 8.5%. LSIL (35.9 ± 8.0 years) and HSIL (34.4 ± 7.2 years) were detected at significantly younger ages.

Conclusion: In our study, we detected an increase in the prevalence of precancerous lesions in years by ThinPrep method.

Keywords

• Bethesda System,Conventional Method,ThinPrep Method,Cervical Smear

Kaynakça

1. Costa MO, Heráclio SA, Coelho AV, Acioly VL, Souza PR, Correia MT. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou cytology samples with liquid-based cervical cytology samples from women in Pernambuco, Brazil. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2015;48:831-8.
2. Elfström KM, Arnheim-Dahlström L, von Karsa L, Dillner J. Cervical cancer screening in Europe: Quality assurance and organisation of programmes. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:950-68.
3. Latsuzbaia A, Hebette G, Fischer M, Arbyn M, Weyers S, Vielh P, Schmitt F, Mossong J. Introduction of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening in Luxembourg. Diagn Cytopathol. 2017;45:384-390.
4. Singhakum N, Laiwejpithaya S, Chaopotong P. Digital Cervicography by Simply Portable Device as an Alternative Test for Cervical Cancer Screening in Rural Area of Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018;19:1145-1149.
5. Arbyn M, Roelens J, Simoens C, Buntinx F, Paraskevaidis E, Martin-Hirsch PP, Prendiville WJ. Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(3):CD008054.
6. Upendram P, Sahni S, Mohiuddin K, Poornima S, Gourishankar B, Kumar Vattam K, Boddala P, Jayashankar E, Mohiuddin S, Kamineni V, Mohan V, Houldsworth J, Hasan Q. Amplification of specific chromosomal regions assessed by fluorescent in situ hybridization on Pap smears to be added as screening tool for identifying women at risk of progressing to cervical cancer. Tumour Biol. 2017;39:1010428317698363.
7. Nayar R, Wilbur DC. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: A Historical Perspective. Acta Cytol. 2017;61:359-372.
8. Gultekin M, Zayifoglu Karaca M, Kucukyildiz I, Dundar S, Boztas G, Semra Turan H, Hacikamiloglu E, Murtuza K, Keskinkilic B, Sencan I. Initial results of population based cervical cancer screening program using HPV testing in one million Turkish women. Int J Cancer. 2018;142:1952-1958.

9. Karateke A, Gurbuz A, Kabaca C, Zati A, Mengulluoglu M, Kir G. Atypical squamous cells: improvement in cytohistological correlation by the 2001 Bethesda System. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004;25:615-8.
10. Wilbur DC, Nayar R. Bethesda 2014: improving on a paradigm shift. Cytopathology. 2015;26:339-42.
11. Gage JC, Hunt WC, Schiffman M, Katki HA, Cheung LA, Myers O, Cuzick J, Wentzensen N, Kinney W, Castle PE, Wheeler CM; New Mexico HPV Pap Registry Steering Committee. Similar Risk Patterns After Cervical Screening in Two Large U.S. Populations: Implications for Clinical Guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:1248-1257.
12. Stolnicu S, Musca S, Micu D, Micu L, Moldovan C, Puscasiu L. Prevalence of abnormal Pap smears in a consecutive and previously unscreened population in Romania. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;124:156-9.
13. Kapila K, Sharma PN, George SS, Al-Shaheen A, Al-Juwaiser A, Al-Awadhi R. Trends in Epithelial Cell Abnormalities Observed on Cervical Smears over a 21-Year Period in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kuwait. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2015;15:e112-5.
14. Turkish Cervical Cancer And Cervical Cytology Research Group. Prevalence of cervical cytological abnormalities in Turkey. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;106:206-9.
15. Atilgan R, Celik A, Boztosun A, Ilter E, Yalta T, Ozercan R. Evaluation of cervical cytological abnormalities in Turkish population. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2012;55:52-5.
16. Erdem H, Şahiner C, Yıldırım Ü, Köse SA, Karataş A, Uzunlar AK, Kadıoğlu N, Şipal S. Servikovajinal Pap Smear Sonuçlarının Klinik Parametrelerle Karşılaştırılması. J Kartal TR 2011;22:121-126.
17. Sengul D, Altinay S, Oksuz H, Demirturk H, Korkmazer E. Population-based cervical screening outcomes in Turkey over a period of approximately nine and a half years with emphasis on results for women aged 30-34. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:2069-74.
18. Abide ÇY, Tayyar AT, Karateke A. Hastanemiz Verilerine Göre Anormal Servikal Smear, Preinvaziv Servikal Patoloji ve Servikal Kanser Oranlarının Yıllara Göre Değişimi. Zeynep Kamil Tıp Bülteni. 2017;48:73-79.
19. Singh VB, Gupta N, Nijhawan R, Srinivasan R, Suri V, Rajwanshi A. Liquid-based cytology versus conventional cytology for evaluation of cervical Pap smears: experience from the first 1000 split samples. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2015;58:17-21.
20. Tuncer ZS, Başaran M, Sezgin Y, Firat P, Mocan Kuzey G. Clinical results of a split sample liquid-based cytology (ThinPrep) study of 4,322 patients in a Turkish institution. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2005;26:646-8.