48,485
edits
Difference between revisions of "Gynecologic cytopathology"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Unusual non-malignant cells: vacuolization
m (→Cytology) |
m (→Unusual non-malignant cells: vacuolization) |
||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
#*Notes: | #*Notes: | ||
#**Endometrial cells may appear irregular in the context of an intrauterine device (IUD); abnormalities in the context of an IUD are often ignored. | #**Endometrial cells may appear irregular in the context of an intrauterine device (IUD); abnormalities in the context of an IUD are often ignored. | ||
#***Classic change: cytoplasmic vacuolization. | |||
#**The presence of endometrial cells on a Pap test on a woman >=40 years old (per Bethesda guidelines) should be noted in the pathology report<ref name=pmid15900572>{{cite journal |author=Thrall MJ, Kjeldahl KS, Savik K, Gulbahce HE, Pambuccian SE |title=Significance of benign endometrial cells in papanicolaou tests from women aged >=40 years |journal=Cancer |volume=105 |issue=4 |pages=207-16 |year=2005 |month=August |pmid=15900572 |doi=10.1002/cncr.21156 |url=}}</ref> - this prompts an endometrial biopsy. | #**The presence of endometrial cells on a Pap test on a woman >=40 years old (per Bethesda guidelines) should be noted in the pathology report<ref name=pmid15900572>{{cite journal |author=Thrall MJ, Kjeldahl KS, Savik K, Gulbahce HE, Pambuccian SE |title=Significance of benign endometrial cells in papanicolaou tests from women aged >=40 years |journal=Cancer |volume=105 |issue=4 |pages=207-16 |year=2005 |month=August |pmid=15900572 |doi=10.1002/cncr.21156 |url=}}</ref> - this prompts an endometrial biopsy. | ||
#***In my humble opinion, reporting benign endometrial cells in premenopausal women is ''not'' evidence-based practise; the practise is driven by lawsuit-paranoia in the USA. | #***In my humble opinion, reporting benign endometrial cells in premenopausal women is ''not'' evidence-based practise; the practise is driven by lawsuit-paranoia in the USA. | ||