Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2003
Misdiagnosis of high-grade vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN III) as mild cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN I) on Papanicolaou tests.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
August Carey Z, Ganji Masoud, Froula Evelyn
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Although high-grade vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN III) is a clinically significant lesion, it can be overlooked because of nonspecific clinical findings and the fact that its cytomorphologic features mimic those of mild cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN I).
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there are cytomorphologic features on Papanicolaou tests that can reliably distinguish between VIN III and CIN I.
DESIGN: Papanicolaou tests diagnosed as CIN I from patients with biopsy-proven CIN I were compared with Papanicolaou tests diagnosed as CIN I from patients with biopsy-proven VIN III but with no biopsy-proven CIN I.
RESULTS: None of the cytomorphologic features evaluated could reliably distinguish CIN I from VIN III.
CONCLUSION: Since the Papanicolaou test cannot be used to distinguish between CIN I and VIN III, the clinician must pay careful attention to the clinical and colposcopic findings. Further research evaluating the use of ancillary studies, such as human papillomavirus typing, may be useful.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there are cytomorphologic features on Papanicolaou tests that can reliably distinguish between VIN III and CIN I.
DESIGN: Papanicolaou tests diagnosed as CIN I from patients with biopsy-proven CIN I were compared with Papanicolaou tests diagnosed as CIN I from patients with biopsy-proven VIN III but with no biopsy-proven CIN I.
RESULTS: None of the cytomorphologic features evaluated could reliably distinguish CIN I from VIN III.
CONCLUSION: Since the Papanicolaou test cannot be used to distinguish between CIN I and VIN III, the clinician must pay careful attention to the clinical and colposcopic findings. Further research evaluating the use of ancillary studies, such as human papillomavirus typing, may be useful.