Abnormalities in cervical smears stored in plastic bags:

Potential cause of false negatives 

Autores: Ortega González Patricia, González Bravo Margarita S, Jiménez Muñoz-Ledo Gustavo, Macías Hernández Alejandro Ernesto

Resumen

Introduction: Cervical smear is the most economic and efficient diagnostic tool for screening of cervical cancer. However, since the use of plastic bags in transporting and storing specimens was implemented in Guanajuato, we have observed cytological abnormalities, which complicate diagnosis and lead to false negative Results: Our objective in this article is to describe those abnormalities. Material and methods: Among 340 women registered in a primary care center in Mexico, 68 were selected through systematic random sampling during 2007. A cervical sample was obtained and placed on two slides. The first smear was allowed to dry, while the second was placed in a plastic bag immediately after fixation. After 15 days all of the smears were stained with the Papanicolaou technique. A certified pathologist, who was blinded regarding the key variable under study, interpreted the samples according to the Bethesda system and evaluated the presence of necrosis, edema, holes, and opportunistic microorganisms. Results: Of the 68 smears exposed to humid storage, 36 (53%) were inadequate for diagnosis (Fisher’s exact probability < 0.001). In this group, 36 (53%) had holes or lagoons, 34 (50%) had edema, 31 (46%) had necrosis, and 15 (22%) had fungus. Interestingly, among the 68 dried cervical smears, all were adequate for diagnosis and none had changes or cytological abnormalities. Conclusion: The humid transport and storage of cervical smears produced morphological abnormalities that could lead to false negative results. The guidelines for the handling of cervical smears must stress the importance of allowing the smears to dry completely after fixation and before storing them in plastic bags.

Palabras clave: Cervical smear cervical cancer handling of smears humidity procedure guidelines.

2014-11-10   |   576 visitas   |   Evalua este artículo 0 valoraciones

Vol. 63 Núm.3. Mayo-Junio 2011 Pags. 263-267 Rev Invest Clin 2011; 63(3-ENGLISH)