Comparison between the conventional reporting format and the Osaki Study Group reporting format for endometrial cytology

Abstract

Objective : Endometrial cytology is an important tool for the diagnosis of endometrial malignancies. The Osaki Study Group reporting format (OSGF) is a new reporting format for endometrial cytology, and its usefulness over the conventional reporting format (CRF) remain unknown. We compared the CRF and OSGF in terms of their diagnostic accuracy for endometrial malignancies.

Study Design : We examined 100 cases of liquid-based cytology (Sure Path) according to the CRF and 121 liquid-based cytology specimens according to the OSGF, and compared the diagnostic accuracy between the two reporting systems. Next, we reclassified the CRF cases according to the OSGF, and compared the diagnostic accuracies of the two formats for the same samples. In addition, we compared the biopsy rate that followed the cytology findings reported according to the CRF and OSGF.

Results : The diagnostic sensitivity (97.1% vs. 63.3%, p<0.01) and specificity (98.6% vs. 85.1%, p<0.01) were higher for OSGF than for CRF. The diagnostic sensitivity in the cases reported by the CRF improved when the findings were reclassified according to the OSGF. The post-report biopsy rate was significantly lower in the OSGF group than in the CRF group (p<0.01).

Conclusion : The OSGF is a more useful format for the diagnosis of endometrial malignancies than the CRF used in conventional clinical practice.