Pathology correlates of a papanicolaou diagnosis of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion

Omar Al-Nourhji, Michael J. Beckmann, Stephen J. Markwell, L. Stewart Massad

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

19 Scopus citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND. The objective of this study was to compare findings after a cytologic report of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, cannot exclude highgrade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL-H) with findings after a report of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL). METHODS. A review of patient records revealed that 312 women had cytologic findings of LSIL-H, and 324 consecutive women in a comparison group had cytologic findings of LSIL during 2005. Findings over 6 months after diagnosis were retrieved and analyzed using chi-square tests, Fisher exact tests, and independent group t tests. RESULTS. Histology was available for 194 of 312 women (64%) with LSIL-H and for 184 of 324 women (57%) with LSIL. Of these, 47 of 194 women (24%) with LSIL-H had grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or greater (CIN21) versus 13 of 184 women (7%) with LSIL (P<.0001). No cancers were identified. High-grade SIL cytology was reported in 2 of 105 women who had LSIL (2%) and in 4 of 93 women who had LSIL-H (4%). Women with LSIL-H who were positive for CIN21 were younger than those without CIN21 (25 years vs 30 years; P 5.0067) CONCLUSIONS. Clinicians whose laboratories report LSIL-H should manage women who have LSIL-H with colposcopy, whereas only serial cytologic surveillance is required after a report of LSIL.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)469-473
Number of pages5
JournalCancer Cytopathology
Volume114
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 25 2008

Keywords

  • Cannot exclude highgrade squamous intraepithelial lesion
  • Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
  • Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion
  • Papanicolaou test

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Pathology correlates of a papanicolaou diagnosis of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this