Normal and Benign Cervical Cytology

  • Rossitza Draganova-TachevaEmail author
  • Kim HooKim
Part of the Practical Anatomic Pathology book series (PAP)


A correctly taken cervical smear or liquid-based cytology preparation contains a variety of epithelial cells from the ectocervical squamous epithelium, transformation zone, and endocervical canal. A benign sample could also contain exfoliated endometrial cells, histiocytes, leukocytes, red blood cells, and normal vaginal flora. The type of epithelial cells seen on slides is determined by factors like the degree of maturation of the cervical epithelium, the location of the squamocolumnar junction which depends on the hormonal status at the time of sampling, the presence of metaplastic changes in the transformation zone, or the presence of inflammation or infection. Knowing the spectrum of benign findings is of paramount importance for the correct interpretation of cervical cytology specimens.


Liquid-based preparations Adequacy Reactive/reparative changes Atrophy Squamous metaplasia Squamous intraepithelial lesion Keratotic changes Tubal metaplasia Pregnancy-related changes Glandular cells Endometrial cells 


  1. 1.
    Gibb RK, Mark G Martens. The impact of liquid-based cytology in decreasing the incidence of cervical cancer. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2011;4(Suppl 1):S2–S11. PMCID: PMC3101960.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdson GG, et al. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:278–84. PMID: 9241308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Díaz-Rosario LA, Kabawat SE. Performance of a fluid-based, thin-layer Papanicolaou smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an outpatient screening population in New England. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123:817–21. PMID: 10458830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hatch KD, Sheets E, Kennedy A, et al. Multicenter direct to vial evaluation of a liquid-based pap test. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2004;8:308–12. PMID: 15874878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta N, Bhar VS, Rajwanshi A, Suri V. Unsatisfactory rate in liquid-based cervical samples as compared to conventional smears: a study from tertiary care hospital. Cytojournal. 2016;13:14. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilbur DC, Black-Schaffer WS, Luff RD, et al. The Becton Dickinson FocalPoint GS Imaging System: clinical trials demonstrate significantly improved sensitivity for the detection of important cervical lesions. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132:767–75. PMID: 19846820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nayar R, Wilbur DC. Specimen adequacy. In: The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: Springer. ISBN: 978-3-319-11073-8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheffield MV, Simsir A, Talley L, Roberson AJ, Elgert PA, Chhieng DC. Interobserver variability in assessing adequacy of the squamous component in conventional cervicovaginal smears. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119(3):367–73. PMID: 12645338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moore D, Pugh-Cain D, Walker T. Cervical smear adequacy: cellularity references were found to increase both interobserver agreement and unsatisfactory rate. Cytopathology. 2009;20(3):161–8. Epub 2008 Aug 18. PMID: 18713249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haroon S, Samayoa L, Witzke D, Davey D. Reproducibility of cervicovaginal ThinPrep cellularity assessment. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26(1):19–21. PMID: 11782081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitchell HS. Longitudinal analysis of histologic high-grade disease after negative cervical cytology according to endocervical status. Cancer. 2001;93(4):237–40. PMID: 11507695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bos AB, van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Hanselaar AG, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD. Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115(6):851–5. PMID: 11392881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sultana F, English DR, Simpson JA, Canfell K, Gertig DM, Saville M. High-grade cervical abnormalities and cervical cancer in women following a negative Pap smear with and without an endocervical component: a cohort study with 10 years of follow-up. Int J Cancer. 2014;135(5):1213–9. Epub 2014 Mar 13. PMID: 24488882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gray W, Kocjan G. Vulva, vagina and cervix: normal cytology, hormonal and inflammatory conditions. In: Diagnostic cytopathology. 3rd ed: Elsevier; 2013. ISBN: 978-0702031540.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McEndree B. Clinical application of the vaginal maturation index. Nurse Pract. 1999;24(9):48, 51–2, 55–6. PMID: 10507070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bibbo M, Wilbur D. Microbiology, inflammation, and viral infections. In: Comprehensive cytopathology. 4th ed: Elsevier; 2015. ISBN: 978-1-4557-5195-2.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bukhari MH, Majeed M, Qamar S, Niazi S, Syed SZ, Yusuf AW, Yusuf NW. Clinicopathological study of Papanicolaou (Pap) smears for diagnosing of cervical infections. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012;40(1):35–41. PMID: 20949462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tirone NR, Souza CE, Michelin MA, Murta EF. Frequency of infectious agents for vaginitis in patients with a cytological diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2008;29(2):144–7. PMID: 18459549.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roeters AM, Boon ME, van Haaften M, Vernooij F, Bontekoe TR, Heintz AP. Inflammatory events as detected in cervical smears and squamous intraepithelial lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 2010;38(2):85–93. PMID: 19795485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nayar R, Wilbur DC. Non-neoplastic findings. In: The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: Springer. ISBN: 978-3-319-11073-8.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Colgan TJ, Woodhouse SL, Styer PE, Kennedy M, Davey DD. Reparative changes and the false-positive/false-negative Papanicolaou test: a study from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125(1):134–40. PMID: 11151067.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ng WK, Li AS, Cheung LK. Significance of atypical repair in liquid-based gynecologic cytology: a follow-up study with molecular analysis for human papillomavirus. Cancer. 2003;99(3):141–8. PMID: 12811854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bibbo M, Wilbur D. Benign proliferative reactions, intraepithelial neoplasia, and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix. In: Comprehensive cytopathology. 4th ed: Elsevier; 2015. ISBN: 978-1-4557-5195-2.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saad RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Lu E, Modery J, Kanbour A. Cytomorphologic analysis and histological correlation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in postmenopausal women. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006;34(7):467–71. PMID: 16783775. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Flynn K1, Rimm DL. Diagnosis of “ASCUS” in women over age 50 is less likely to be associated with dysplasia. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001;24(2):132–6. PMID: 11169895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patton AL, Duncan L, Bloom L, Phaneuf G, Zafar N. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude a high-grade intraepithelial lesion and its clinical significance in postmenopausal, pregnant, postpartum, and contraceptive-use patients. Cancer. 2008;114(6):481–8. PMID: 18980288 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23949.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Izadi-Mood N, Sarmadi S, Alijani S, Sanii S. The significance of hyperkeratosis in pap smears with squamous intraepithelial lesion. Acta Cytol. 2012;56:379–82. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Williamson BA, DeFrias D, Gunn R, Tarjan G, Nayar R. Significance of extensive hyperkeratosis on cervical/vaginal smears. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):749–52. PMID: 14526673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ducatman BS, Wang HH, Jonasson JG, Hogan CL, Antonioli DA. Tubal metaplasia: A cytologic study with comparison to other neoplastic and non-neoplastic conditions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol. 1993;9(1):98–103; discussion 103–5. PMID: 8458292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Novotny DB, Maygarden SJ, Johnson DE, Frable WJ. Tubal metaplasia. A frequent potential pitfall in the cytologic diagnosis of endocervical glandular dysplasia on cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1992;36(1):1–10. PMID: 1546503.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Michael CW, Esfahani FM. Pregnancy-related changes: a retrospective review of 278 cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;17(2):99–107. PMID: 9258616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cangiarella JF, Cohen JM. Significance of AGUS Pap smears in pregnant and postpartum women. Acta Cytol. 2001;45(3):294–9. PMID: 11393057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eren F, Savci D, Erbarut I, Gökaslan H. Benign glandular cells in posthysterectomy vaginal smears: the incidence is higher than expected. Cytopathology. 2004;15(4):195–9. PMID: 15324446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ramdall RB, Wallach RC, Cangiarella J, Cai G, Elgert P, Simsir A, Levine P. Origin, frequency and clinical significance of glandular cells in liquid-based pap tests from patients posthysterectomy. Acta Cytol. 2009;53(1):1–9. PMID: 19248548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yavuz E, Ozlük Y, Küçücük S, Tuzlali S, Akhan SE, Ilhan R, Topuz S, Iplikçi A. Radiation-induced benign glandular cells in posthysterectomy smears: a cytomorphologic and clinical analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16(2):670–4. PMID: 16681745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nayar R, Wilbur DC. Endometrial cells: the how and when of reporting. In: The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: Springer. ISBN: 978-3-319-11073-8.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Izadi-Mood N, Sarmadi S, Sanii S, Sadidi H. Normal-appearing endometrial cells in pap tests of women aged forty years or older and cytohistological correlates. Acta Cytol. 2015;59(2):175–9. Epub 2015 Apr 23. PMID: 25924690.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Greenspan DL, Cardillo M, Davey DD, Heller DS, Moriarty AT. Endometrial cells in cervical cytology: review of cytological features and clinical assessment. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2006;10(2):111–22. PMID: 16633242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gupta PK, Burroughs F, Luff RD, Frost JK, Erozan YS. Epithelial atypias associated with intrauterine contraception device (IUD). Acta Cytol. 1978;22(5):286–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kurman RJ, Hendrick Elleson L, Ronnet BM. Blaustein’s pathology of female genital tract. London: Springer; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cibas ES, Ducatman BS. Cytology: diagnostic principles and clinical correlates. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell BiologyThomas Jefferson University HospitalPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell BiologyThomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations