» Articles » PMID: 26556907

Progression or Regression? - Strengths and Weaknesses of the New Munich Nomenclature III for Cervix Cytology

Overview
Date 2015 Nov 12
PMID 26556907
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Since 01. 01. 2015 the new Munich nomenclature III for gynaecological diagnostics of the cervix has been in force. The changes have led to controversial scientific discussions. This study reports for the first time on the consequences. The present data are based on smear screening results for the year 2014. The data of 63 134 patients were evaluated. 2.27 % of all smears were remarkable. Group IIa was assigned to 0.91 %. Group II-p was somewhat more frequently recorded than group IIID1 (0.59 vs. 0.53 %). Groups IIID1 and IIID2 were found in 0.53 and 0.61 %, respectively, of the cases. Agreement with histology was found in 36.84 and 44.68 %, respectively. Glandular lesions represented the most frequent changes in group III. Histological clarification was obtained for 0.18 % of all remarkable findings. The relative incidence of high-grade precancerous conditions (CIN III) and invasive tumours amounted to 0.1 %. A close communication between gynaecologists and cytologists is mandatory for the correct usage of the new nomenclature. The future annual statistics of the health insurances can now be analysed in more detail. A statistical classification of glandular epithelial changes is now also possible for the first time. The heterogeneous group IIa constitutes an unnecessary uncertainty for patients and physicians. The splitting of the group IIID does not appear to have any advantage for the further clinical management. Further studies are needed to show whether or not the classification can stand up to international comparisons.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of P16/Ki67 (CINtecPlus) and L1-capsid compared with HPV-genotyping in cervical cytology in women ≥35 years old focusing on patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.

Abbas M, Erduran I, de Jonge J, Bettendorf O Oncol Lett. 2022; 24(1):242.

PMID: 35720497 PMC: 9185144. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2022.13362.

References
1.
Ostor A . Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1993; 12(2):186-92. View

2.
Griesser H, Marquardt K, Jordan B . Remarks on the "Comments on the Publication of Munich Nomenclature III by the Cytology Coordination Conference" by A. Schneider and P. Hillemanns (Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2014; 74: 242-243). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2014; 74(7):636. PMC: 4119103. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368548. View

3.
Kjaer S, Breugelmans G, Munk C, Junge J, Watson M, Iftner T . Population-based prevalence, type- and age-specific distribution of HPV in women before introduction of an HPV-vaccination program in Denmark. Int J Cancer. 2008; 123(8):1864-70. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.23712. View

4.
Loning T, Riethdorf L, Kobel M . [Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of cervical adenocarcinoma]. Pathologe. 2011; 32(6):505-13. DOI: 10.1007/s00292-011-1481-8. View

5.
Kuhn W, Gieseking F, Menton M, Link H, Quass J, Kuppers V . Remarks by the Board of the Study Group for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy on the "Comments on the Publication of Munich Nomenclature III by the Cytology Coordination Conference" by A. Schneider and P. Hillemanns (Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2014; 74:.... Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2014; 74(7):634-635. PMC: 4119101. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368553. View