Comparison of CINtec PLUS cytology and cobas HPV test for triaging Canadian patients with LSIL cytology referred to colposcopy: A two-year prospective study.

OBJECTIVES & METHODS: CINtec PLUS and cobas HPV tests were compared for triaging patients referred to colposcopy with a history of LSIL cytology in a 2-year prospective study. Cervical specimens were tested once at enrollment, and test positivity rates determined. Test performance was ascertained with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and CIN3 or worse (CIN3+) serving as clinical endpoints. RESULTS: In all ages, (19-76 years, n= 598), 44.3% tested CINtec PLUS positive vs. 55.4% HPV positive (p< 0.001). To detect CIN2+ (n= 99), CINtec PLUS was 81.8% sensitive vs. 93.9% for HPV testing (p= 0.009); genotype 16/18-specific sensitivity was 46.5%. Specificity was 52.9% vs. 36.6%, respectively (p< 0.001). In all ages, to detect CIN3+ (n= 44), sensitivity was 93.2% for both tests; genotype 16/18-specific sensitivity was 52.3%. Specificity was 48.4% for CINtec PLUS vs. 31.1% for HPV testing (p< 0.001). In patients < 30 years, CINtec was 91.7% sensitive vs 95.8% for HPV testing (p= 0.549). CONCLUSIONS: CINtec PLUS or cobas HPV test could serve as a predictor of CIN3+ with high sensitivity in patients referred to colposcopy with a history of LSIL regardless of age while significantly reducing the number of LSIL referral patients requiring further investigations and follow-up in colposcopy clinics.

Case reports on a gastric mass presenting with regional lymphadenopathy: A differential diagnosis is gastric schwannoma.

BACKGROUND: Gastric schwannomas are uncommon among a broad range of possible diagnoses in the work up of a gastric mass. Regional lymphadenopathy associated with gastric schwannoma is an even less common occurrence and one would otherwise suspect a malignant neoplasm. CASE PRESENTATION: We present two non-consecutive cases from a signle academic center depicting Caucasian females in their 5th and 6th decades of life with gastric schwannoma and adjacent lymphadenopathy. Multiple lymph node excisions were performed without evidence of neoplasia. DISCUSSION: Lymphadanopathy in the presence of a gastric mass typically represents malignant neoplasm. A less than likely presentation of gastric schwannoma with reactive regional lymph nodes poses a challenge to adequate preoperative diagnosis and increases risk for a more aggressive than necessary surgical approach with lymphadenectomy. CONCLUSION: While the correlation between gastric schwannoma and lymphadenopathy is uncertain, this ought to be considered. If diagnosis can be confirmed preoperatively, omission of lymphadenectomy is appropriate.