Gynecologic Cytopathology

Yu G.H.a· Song S.J.b

Author affiliations

aDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cytopathology Section, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA
bDepartment of Pathology, Spectrum Healthcare Partners, Portland, ME, USA

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Access via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing of this article Organize, annotate And mark up articles Printing And downloading restrictions apply

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: August 27, 2022
Accepted: November 08, 2022
Published online: January 10, 2023

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 9
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ACY

Abstract

Background: Pelvic washing and peritoneal fluid cytology specimens are used to detect peritoneal spread of malignancies. In most cases, identification of malignancy in these specimens is straightforward, but benign processes may occasionally mimic neoplasia and cause diagnostic difficulty. Summary: In this article, we perform a focused review of common benign entities encountered in pelvic washing and peritoneal fluid specimens during routine practice which may cause difficulty and discuss helpful features for avoiding diagnostic pitfalls. Key Messages: Application of strict cytomorphologic criteria, along with judicious use of ancillary studies and correlation with clinical, intraoperative, radiologic, and other pathologic findings, can help resolve most problematic cases.

© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel

References VandenBussche C, Crothers B, Fader A, Jackson A, Li Z, Zhao C. Special considerations for peritoneal washings. In: Chandra A, editors. The international system for serous fluid cytopathology. Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2020. p. 167–237. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F,, editors. AJCC cancer staging handbook: from the AJCC cancer staging manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer; 2017. Prat J, FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. FIGO’s staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum: abridged republication. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015;26(2):487–9. Sneige N, Fanning CV. Peritoneal washing cytology in women: diagnostic pitfalls and clues for correct diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 1992;8(6):632–40; discussion 640–2. Creasman WT, Rutledge F. The prognostic value of peritoneal cytology in gynecologic malignant disease. AM J Obstet Gynecol. 1971;110(6):773–81. Zuna RE, Mitchell ML. Cytologic findings in peritoneal washings associated with benign gynecologic disease. Acta Cytol. 1988;32(2):139–47. Lin O. Challenges in the interpretation of peritoneal cytologic specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(5):739–42. Selvaggi SM. Diagnostic pitfalls of peritoneal washing cytology and the role of cell blocks in their diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;28(6):335–41. Frost JK. Pathologic processes affecting cells from inflammation to cancer. In: Bibbo M, editor. Comprehensive cytopathology. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1997. p. 75–89. Aydin HB, Chen A, Lee H. Nodular histiocytic/mesothelial hyperplasia, a benign entity posing diagnostic challenge. Hum Pathol Rep. 2022;28:300613–4. Grech J, Lilley CM, Martinbianco EM, Ding X, Mirza KM, Chen X. Nodular histiocytic/mesothelial hyperplasia mimicking mesenteric metastasis. Cureus. 2022;14(5):e24971. Parwani AV, Chan TY, Ali SZ. Significance of psammoma bodies in serous cavity fluid. A cytopathologic analysis. Cancer. 2004;102(2):87–91. Sun T, Pitman MB, Torous VF. Determining the significance of psammoma bodies in pelvic washings: a 10-year retrospective review. Cancer Cytopathol. 2021;129(1):83–9. Sneige N, Dawlett MA, Kologinczak TL, Guo M. Endosalpingiosis in peritoneal washings in women with benign gynecologic conditions: thirty-eight cases confirmed with paired box-8 immunohistochemical staining and correlation with surgical biopsy findings. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121(10):582–90. Sturgis CD, Pointon MJ. Beautifully benign: mesothelial “daisy” cells, a potential pelvic washing pitfall. Diagn Cytopathol. 2015;43(8):629–31. Doglioni C, DeiTos AP, Laurino L, Iuzzolino P, Chiarelli C, Celio MR. Calretinin: a novel immunocytochemical marker for mesothelioma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996;20(9):1037–46. Ordonez NG. Role of immunohistochemistry in distinguishing epithelial peritoneal mesotheliomas from peritoneal and ovarian serous carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22(10):1203–14. Wieczorek TJ, Krane JF. Diagnostic utility of calretinin immunohistochemistry in cytologic cell block preparations. Cancer. 2000;90(5):312–9. Chapel DB, Husain AN, Krausz T, McGregor SM. PAX8 expression in a subset of malignant peritoneal mesotheliomas and benign mesothelium has diagnostic implications in the differential diagnosis of ovarian serous carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(12):1675–82. Mills SE. Histology for pathologists. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Willams & Wilkins; 2012. Zinsser KR, Wheeler JE. Endosalpingiosis in the omentum. A study of autopsy and surgical material. Am J Surg Pathol. 1982;6(2):109–17. Sidawy MK, Silverberg SG. Endosalpingiosis in female peritoneal washings: a diagnostic pitfall. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1987;6(4):340–6. Sneige N, Fernandez T, Copeland LJ, Katz RL. Mullerian inclusions in peritoneal washings: potential source of error in cytologic diagnosis. Acta Cytol. 1986;30(3):271–6. Giudice LC, Kao LC. Endometriosis. Lancet. 2004;364(9447):1789–99. Bulun SE. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):268–79. Barkan GA, Naylor B, Gattuso P, Kullu S, Galan K, Wojcik EM. Morphologic features of endometriosis in various types of cytologic specimens. Diagn Cytopathol. 2013;41(11):936–42. Song SJ, McGrath CM, Yu GH. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of endometriosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 2017;45(4):359–63. El-Gohary YM, Garcia MT, Ganjei-Azar P. Decidualized endometrioma diagnosed by fine needle aspiration cytology: a case report with immunocytochemical confirmation. Diagn Cytopathol. 2009;37(5):373–6. Sumathi VP, McCluggage WG. CD10 is useful in demonstrating endometrial stroma at ectopic sites and in confirming a diagnosis of endometriosis. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55(5):391–2. Schulte JJ, Lastra RR. Abdominopelvic washings in gynecologic pathology: a comprehensive review. Diagn Cytopathol. 2016;44(12):1039–57. Wojcik EM, Naylor B. “Collagen balls” in peritoneal washings: prevalence, morphology, origin and significance. Acta Cytol. 1992;36(4):466–70. Shield P. Peritoneal washing cytology. Cytopathology. 2004;15(3):131–41. Quinn G, Hales S, Hamid B, Meara N. Comparison of mucoid-mimic artefact with true mucin in peritoneal cytology samples. Cytopathology. 2015;26(3):194–6. Vazquez M, Newman M. Imposter mucin: awareness of an important cytology artefact. Pathology. 2019;51(4):448–9. Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: August 27, 2022
Accepted: November 08, 2022
Published online: January 10, 2023

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 9
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ACY

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.