Adenocarcinoma in situ in cervical smears with a small cell (endometrioid) pattern: Distinction from cells directly sampled from the upper endocervical canal or lower segment of the endometrium

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 109, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 738-742

  Lee, Kenneth R ^a,b   Genest, David R ^a,b   Minter, Lori J ^a   Granter, Scott R ^a,b   Cibas, Edmund S ^a,b  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma; Adenocarcinoma in situ; Cervix; Cytology; Endometrial cells; Papanicolaou smears; Uterus

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHROMATIN; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ENDOMETRIUM CELL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MITOSIS; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STROMA CELL; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

EID: 0031834659     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/109.6.738     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Ayer B, Pacey F, Greenberg M, et al. The cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in-situ of the cervix uteri and related lesions, I: adenocarcinoma in-situ. Acta Cytol. 1987;31:391-411.
2. Lee KR, Manna EA, Jones MA. Comparative cytologic features of adenocarcinoma in-situ of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol, 1991;35:117-126.
3. Lee KR, Manna EA, St John T. Atypical endocervical glandular cells: accuracy of cytologic diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;13:202-208.
4. Bose S, Kannan V, Kline T. Abnormal endocervical cells: really abnormal? really endocervical? Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:708-713.
5. Selvaggi SM. Cytologic features of squamous cell carcinoma insitu involving endocervical glands in endocervical cytobrush specimens. Acta Cytol 1994;38:687-692.
6. Novotny DB, Maygarden SJ, Johnson DE, et al. Tubal metaplasia: a frequent potential pitfall in the cytologic diagnosis of endocervical glandular dysplasia on cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1992;36:1-10.
7. Ducatman BS, Wang HH, Jonasson JG, et al. Tubal metaplasia: a cytologic study with comparison to other neoplastic and non-neoplastic conditions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol. 1993;9:98-105.
8. Babkowski RC, Wilbur DC, Rutkowski MA, et al. The effects of endocervical canal topography, tubal metaplasia, and high canal sampling on the cytologic presentation of non-neoplastic endocervical cells. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;105:403-110.
9. de Peralta-Venturino MN, Purslow MJ, Kini SR. Endometrial cells of the "lower uterine segment" (LUS) in cervical smears obtained by endocervical brushings: a source of potential diagnostic pitfall. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;12:263-271.
10. Heaton RB, Harris TF, Larson DM, et al. Glandular cells derived from direct sampling of the lower uterine segment in patients' status post cervical cone biopsy: a diagnostic dilemma. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;106:511-516.
11. Lee KR, Minter LJ, Granter SR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for adenocarcinoma in-situ of the cervix: a study of 34 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1997;107:30-35.
12. Pacey F, Ayer B, Greenberg M. The cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in-situ of the cervix uteri and related lesions, III: pitfalls in diagnosis. Acta Cytol. 1988;32:325-330.
13. Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells in cervical smears from women who have undergone cone biopsy: a potential diagnostic pitfall. Acta Cytol. 1993;37:705-707.
14. Fiorella RM, Casafrancisco D, Yokota S, et al. Artifactual endocervical atypia induced by endocervical brush collection. Diagn Cytopathol. 1994;11:79-84.
15. Benoit AG, Kreport GV, Lotocki RJ. Results of prior cytologic screening in patients with a diagnosis of stage I carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;148:690-694.
16. Boddington MM, Spriggs AI, Cowdrell RH. Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: cytologic evidence of a long preclinical evolution. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1976;83:900-903.
17. Boon ME, Guilloud JCD, Kok LT, et al. Efficacy of screening for cervical squamous and adenocarcinoma: the Dutch experience. Cancer. 1987;59:862-866.
18. Mitchell H, Medley G, Gordon I, et al. Cervical cytology reported as negative and risk of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: no strong evidence of benefit. Br J Cancer. 1995;71:894-897.