Clinical Significance of Atypical Glandular Cells in the Bethesda System 2001: A Comparison with the Histopathological Diagnosis of Surgically Resected Specimens

Figures & data

Table 1  Final Histopathological Diagnosis of AGC Patients Stratified by Subtype of Smear and Age

						CIN 3
	CA	AIS	LEGH	EC	OC	CIS	SD	NEM	Premalignant/Malignant	Malignant
ACG NOS (N = 35)	6	6	1	11	1	4	1	5	85.7%	80.0%
ACG FN (N = 6)	2	1	0	2	0	1	0	0	100%	100%
Total	8	7	1	13	1	5	1	5	87.8%	82.9%

Abbreviations: CA, cervical adenocarcinoma; LEGH, lobular endocervical glandular hyperplasia; EC, endometrial cancer; OC, ovarian cancer; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; AIS, adenocarcinoma in situ; CIS, carcinoma in situ; SD, severe dysplasia; NEM, no evidence of malignancy.

Table 2  FIGO Stage of Invasive Cancer Diagnosed as AGC

		No of
	Stage	Patients
Cervical cancer	IA1	1
	IB1	6
	IIB	1
Endometrial cancer	IA	10
	IB	2
	IIIC1	1
Ovarian cancer	IA	1

Table 3  Statistical Analyses Between Age and AGC Subtype, Lesion Type

	Median	p
	age (range)	Value
AGC-NOS (N = 35)	45 (31–87)
AGC-FN (N = 6)	47 (26–75)	N.S.
Cervical lesions (N = 22)	40.5 (26–74)
Endometrial cancer (N = 13)	56 (41–87)	p = 0.008
Squamous lesions (N = 6)	37 (35–52)
Glandular lesions (N = 30)	48.5 (26–87)	p = 0.04

Abbreviation: N.S., not significant.

Table 4  Published Detection Rate of Malignant or Premalignant Lesions With AGC Subtype

Author	Year	AGC-NOS	ACG-FN	AGC total
Tam	2003	19% (20/104)	68% (23/34)	31.6% (43/138)
Krane	2004	27% (7/26)	94% (15/16)	34.3% (37/108)^#
Lai	2008	43% (31/72)	100% (7/7)	48% (38/79)
Westin	2008	28% (21/91)	54% (8/15)	27% (27/106)
Jadoon*	2009			38% (21/56)
Sawangsang	2011	15.2% (7/46)	41.2% (7/17)	22.2% (14/63)
Our study		85.7% (30/35)	100% (6/6)	87.8% (36/41)

^#Includes 35 cases of favor reactive and 21 cases of endometrial type and 10 cases of site not specified.

*British Society of Clinical Cytology classification.