Presencia del componente de la zona de transformación del cuello uterino en citologías anormales en la Clínica de Maternidad Rafael Calvo de Cartagena (Colombia) entre 2009 y 2012
Resumen
Introducción: se ha determinado que es más probable la detección de lesiones de alto grado del cuello uterino en extendidos citológicos con presencia de componente de la zona de transformación; no obstante, la relación entre las tasas de muestreo de esta zona y la detección de alteraciones citológicas es controversial. Objetivo: determinar la presencia del componente de la zona de transformación en citologías cervicales convencionales anormales. Materiales y métodos: se realizó un estudio de corte transversal de todos los extendidos cervicovaginales anormales de la Unidad de Patología Cervical de la E.S.E. Clínica de Maternidad Rafael Calvo de Cartagena (Colombia) entre 2009 y 2012. Se realizó una segunda lectura de la presencia de componente de la zona de transformación y su coexistencia con células anormales en el mismo campo microscópico, a diferentes aumentos, comparando la concurrencia de ambos tipos celulares en lesiones intraepiteliales escamosas de alto y bajo grado. Resultados: se incluyeron 1.287 citologías anormales, 74,7% con componente de la zona de transformación. A mayor grado de lesión se encontró mayor porcentaje de extendidos con dicho componente. La coexistencia de células endocervicales y anormales en el mismo campo microscópico fue mayor en las lesiones de alto grado en comparación con las de bajo grado (p=0,000, X2). Conclusiones: hay mayor frecuencia de extendidos citológicos anormales con presencia de células de la zona de trasformación del cérvix. Su presencia es más frecuente en los extendidos con lesiones de alto grado, donde las células endocervicales o metaplásicas se encuentran íntimamente relacionadas con las anormales.
Descargas
Referencias bibliográficas
Munoz N, Bravo LE. Epidemiology of cervical cancer in Colombia. Colomb Med (Cali) 2012; 43: 298-304.
Murillo R. [Cervical cancer control in Colombia: achievements and challenges of cytology based programs]. Biomedica 2008; 28: 467-470.
https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v28i4.52
Richart RM. A theory of cervical carcinogenesis. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1969; 24: 874-879.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-196907001-00017
Hans N, Cave AJ, Szafran O, Johnson G, Glass A, Spooner GR, et al. Papanicolaou smears: to swab or not to swab. Can Fam Physician 2007; 53: 1328-1329.
Lacruz C. Nomenclatura de las lesiones cervicales. (De Papanicolau a Bethesda 2001). Rev Esp Esp 2003; 36: 5-10.
Papanicolaou GN. Cytologic studies in diagnosis of carcinoma. J Int Coll Surg 1954; 21: 419-426.
Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 167-177.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000296488.85807.b3
Karimi-Zarchi M, Peighmbari F, Karimi N, Rohi M, Chiti Z. A Comparison of 3 Ways of Conventional Pap Smear, Liquid-Based Cytology and Colposcopy vs Cervical Biopsy for Early Diagnosis of Premalignant Lesions or Cervical Cancer in Women with Abnormal Conventional Pap Test. Int J Biomed Sci 2013; 9: 205-210.
Lazcano-Ponce EC, de Ruiz PA, Lopez-Carrillo L, Vazquez-Manriquez ME, Hernandez-Avila M. Quality control study on negative gynecological cytology in Mexico. Diagn Cytopathol 1994; 10: 10-14.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.2840100104
Vooijs PG, Elias A, van der Graaf Y, Veling S. Relationship between the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities and the composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1985; 29: 323-328.
Sultana F, English DR, Simpson JA, Canfell K, Gertig DM, Saville M. High-grade cervical abnormalities and cervical cancer in women following a negative Pap smear with and without an endocervical component: a cohort study with 10 years of follow-up. Int J Cancer 2014; 135: 1213-1219.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.28756
Marchand L, Mundt M, Klein G, Agarwal SC. Optimal collection technique and devices for a quality pap smear. WMJ 2005; 104: 51-55.
Valente PT, Schantz HD, Trabal JF. The determination of Papanicolaou smear adequacy using a semiquantitative method to evaluate cellularity. Diagn Cytopathol 1991; 7: 576-580.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.2840070606
Fokke HE, Salvatore CM, Schipper ME, Bleker OP. The quality of the Pap smear. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1992; 13: 445-448.
The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA 1989; 262: 931-934.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.262.7.931
The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: revised after the second National Cancer Institute Workshop, April 29-30, 1991. Acta Cytol 1993; 37: 115-124.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287: 2114-2119.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.16.2114
Pritchard J. Quality Assurance Guidelines for the Cervical Screening Programme - Report of a Working Party Convened by the NHS Cervical Screening Programme: NHSCSP; 1996.
Pineros M, Cendales R, Murillo R, Wiesner C, Tovar S. [Pap test coverage and related factors in Colombia, 2005]. Rev Salud Publica (Bogota) 2007; 9: 327-341.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0124-00642007000300002
Narine N, Young W. Transformation zone sampling rate is a useful performance indicator for practitioners collecting cervical samples using SurePath liquid-based cytology system. Cytopathology 2007; 18: 220-224.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2303.2007.00454.x
Young W. Comparison of transformation zone sampling rates--a potentially useful indicator of smear taker performance. Cytopathology 2000; 11: 116-123.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2303.2000.00230.x
Bos AB, van Ballegooijen M, Elske van den Akker-van Marle M, Hanselaar AG, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD. Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 115: 851-855.
https://doi.org/10.1309/RP84-MD34-8MFN-39UR
Leung KM, Lam M, Lee JW, Yeoh GP, Chan KW. The significance of endocervical cells and metaplastic squamous cells in liquid-based cervical cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 37: 241-243.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20981
Murillo R. La prevención del cáncer: más allá de las pruebas de tamizaje. Rev Colomb Cancerol 2003; 7: 23-33.
Selvaggi SM, Guidos BJ. Endocervical component: is it a determinant of specimen adequacy? Diagn Cytopathol 2002; 26: 53-55.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.10019
Celasun B. Presence of endocervical cells and number of slides in cervicovaginal smears: differences in performance between gynecologists. Acta Cytol 2001; 45: 730-734.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000328295
Arbyn M, Herbert A, Schenck U, Nieminen P, Jordan J, McGoogan E, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for collecting samples for conventional and liquid-based cytology. Cytopathology 2007; 18: 133-139.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2303.2007.00464.x
Kurman RJ. Tumors of the Cervix, Vagina and Vulva: AFIP Atlas of Tumor Pathology Series. Vol. 13; 2011.
Elias A, Linthorst G, Bekker B, Vooijs PG. The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of cervical epithelial changes. Acta Cytol 1983; 27: 225-229.
Doorbar J, Quint W, Banks L, Bravo IG, Stoler M, Broker TR, et al. The biology and life-cycle of human papillomaviruses. Vaccine 2012; 30 Suppl 5: F55-70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.083
Baak JP, Kruse AJ, Robboy SJ, Janssen EA, van Diermen B, Skaland I. Dynamic behavioural interpretation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with molecular biomarkers. J Clin Pathol 2006; 59: 1017-1028.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2005.027839
Elumir-Tanner L, Doraty M. Management of Papanicolaou test results that lack endocervical cells. CMAJ 2011; 183: 563-568.
https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101156
Murillo R, Cendales R, Wiesner C, Pineros M, Tovar S. [Effectiveness of cytology-based
