Clinical significance of the qualification of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: An analysis on the basis of histologic diagnoses

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 182, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 885-890

  Vlahos, Nikos P ^a   Dragisic, Katherine G ^a   Wallach, Edward E ^a   Burroughs, Frances H ^a   Fluck, Susan ^a   Rosenthal, Dorothy L ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; Cervical dysplasia; Intraepithelial lesion; Reactive process

Indexed keywords

CELL NUCLEUS MEMBRANE; COLPOSCOPY; CONFERENCE PAPER; CYTOPATHOLOGY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATHOGENESIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA;

EID: 0034009992     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9378(00)70340-1     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. 1. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute Workshop, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A., December 12-13, 1988. Acta Cytol 1989;33:567-74.
2. 2. Solomon D, Frable WJ, Vooijs GP, Wilbur DC, Amma NS, Collins RJ, et al. ASCUS and AGUS criteria. International Academy of Cytology Task Four summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial. Acta Cytol 1998;42:16-24.
3. 3. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: revised after the second National Cancer Institute Workshop, April 29-30, 1991. Acta Cytol 1993;37:115-24.
4. 4. Abu-Jawdeh GM, Trawinski G, Wang HH. Histological study of squamous atypia on Pap smears. Mod Pathol 1994;7:920-4.
5. 5. Alanen KW, Elit LM, Molinaro PA, McLachlin CM. Assessment of cytologic follow-up as the recommended management for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Cancer 1998; 84:5-10.
6. 6. Genest DR, Dean B, Lee KR, Sheets E, Crum CP, Cibas ES. Qualifying the cytologic diagnosis of "atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance" affects the predictive value of a sqnamous intraepithelial lesion on subsequent biopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122:338-41.
7. 7. Ghoussoub RA, Rimm DL. Degree of dysplasia following diagnosis of atypical squamotis cells of undetermined significance is influenced by patient history and type of follow-up. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:14-9.
8. 8. Gonzalez D, Hernandez E, Anderson L, Heller P, Atkinson BF. Clinical significance of a cervical cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance favoring a reactive process or low grade sqnamous intraepithelial lesion. J Reprod Med 1996:41;719-23.
9. 9. Kinney WK, Manos MM, Hurley LB, Ransley JE. Where’s the high-grade cervical neoplasia? The importance of minimally abnormal Papanicolaou diagnoses. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:973-6.
10. 10. Kline MJ, Davey DD. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance qualified: a follow-up study. Diagn Cytopathol 1996;14:380-4.
11. 11. Kobelin MH, Kobelin CG, Burke L, Lavin P, Niloff JM, Kim YB. Incidence and predictors of cervical dysplasia in patients with minimally abnormal Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:356-9.
12. 12. Lachman MF, Cavallo-Calvanese C. Qualification of atypical sqnamous cells of undetermined significance in an independent laboratory: is it useful or significant? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:421-9.
13. 13. Lonky NM, Navarre GL, Saunders S, Sadeghi M, Wolde-Tsadik G. Low grade Papanicolaou smears and the Bethesda System: a prospective cytohistopathologic analysis. Obslet Gynecol 1995;85:716-20.
14. 14. Pleotis-Howell L, Davis RL. Follow-up of Papanicolaou smears diagnosed as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Diagn Cytopathol 1996;14:20-24.
15. 15. Rader AE, Lazebnik R, Arora CD, Franklin J, Abdul-Karim FW. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in the pediatric population. Acta Cytol 1997:41:1073-8.
16. 10. Takezawa K, Bennett BB, Wilkinson F.J, Hardt NS, Drew PA. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in a high-risk population. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 1997;1:210-3.
17. 17. Taylor RR, Guerrieri JP, Nash JD, Henry MR, O'Connor DM. Atypical cervical cytology. Colposcopic follow-up using the Bethesda System. J Reprod Med 1993;38:443-7.
18. 18. Sheils LA. Wilbur DC. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: stratification of the risk of association with, or progression to, squamous intraepithelial lesions based on morphologic subcategorization. Acta Cytol 1997;41:1065-72.
19. 19. Williams ML, Rimmi DL, Pedigo MA, Frable WJ. Atypical squamons cells of undetermined significance: correlative histologic and follow-up studies from an academic medical center. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:1-7.
20. 20. Wright TC, Sun XW, Koulos J. Comparison of management algorithms for the evaluation of women with low-grade cytologic abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 1995:85:202-10.
21. 21. Eskridge C, Begneaud WP, Landwehr C. Cervicography combined with repeat Papanicolaou test as triage for low-grade cytologic abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:351-5.
22. 22. Melkert PW, Hopman E, van den Brule AJ. Risse EK, van Diest PJ, Bleker OP, et al. Prevalence of HPV in cytomorphologically normal cervical smears, as determined by the polymerase chain reaction, is age-dependent. Int J Cancer 1993;53:919-23.
23. 23. Rosenfeld WD, Vermund SH, Wentz SJ, Burk RD. High prevalence rate of human papillomavirus infection and association with abnormal Papanicolaou smears in sexually active adolescents. Am J Dis Child 1989;143:1443-7.
24. 21. Cox JT. Evaluating the role of HPV testing for women with equivocal Papanicolaou test findings. JAMA 1999;281:1645-7.
25. 25. Kurman RJ, Henson DE, Herbst AL, Noller KL, Schiffman MH. Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology. JAMA 1994;271:1866-9.