Examination of sources of diagnostic error leading to cervical cone biopsies with no evidence of dysplasia

23Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

At our institution, 17% of cervical conization specimens are reported as negative for dysplasia or malignancy. To identify sources of error, we reviewed 53 negative conization specimens and their prior and follow-up cytology, biopsy, and endocervical curettage specimens. Examination of deeper-level sections and p16 immunostaining were performed on all conization specimens and selected biopsy specimens. Dysplasia was detected in 26% (14/53) of conization specimens. Twenty-eight percent (15/53) of cones were truly negative, and the presurgical material had been overcalled as high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). Forty-five percent (24/53) of cones were truly negative and HSIL was confirmed in the presurgical material. Of these, 11% (6/53) showed subsequent evidence of residual dysplasia and 26% (14/53) were negative on further follow-up. Deeperlevel sections, p16 immunostains, and consensus review may help identify squamous dysplasia in conization specimens and may prevent the overdiagnosis of HSIL on cervical biopsies. © American Society for Clinical Pathology.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Carrigg, A., Teschendorf, C., Amaro, D., Weidner, N., Tipps, A., Shabaik, A., … Hasteh, F. (2013). Examination of sources of diagnostic error leading to cervical cone biopsies with no evidence of dysplasia. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 139(4), 422–427. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCP6BSD0SNGQLHQ

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free