A clinical review of borderline glandular cells on cervical cytology

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 107, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 605-609

  Mohammed, D Kusnah A ^a   Lavie, Ofer ^a   Lopes, Alberto de B ^a   Cross, Paul ^a   Monaghan, John M ^a  

^a QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COLPOSCOPY; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUNCH BIOPSY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; COLPOSCOPY; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0034011736     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13300.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Kennedy AW, Salmieri SS, Wirth SL, Biscotti CV, Tuason LJ, Travarca MJ. Results of the clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGCUS) detected on cervical cytology screening. Gynecol Oncol 1996; 63: 14–18.
2. Jackson SR, Hollingsworth TA, Anderson MC, Johnson J, Hammond RH. Glandular lesions of the cervix—cytological and histological correlation. Cytopathol 1996; 7: 10–16.
3. Buckley CH, Herbert A, Johnson J et al. Borderline nuclear changes in cervical smears: guidelines on their recognition and management. J Clin Path 1994; 47: 481–492.
4. Working Party of the Royal College of Pathologists BSCC, NHSCSP. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting & criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. NHSCSP Publication 1995: 5.
5. Leeson SC, Inglis TCM, Salman WD. A study to determine the underlying reason for abnormal glandular cytology and the formulation of a management protocol. Cytopathol 1997; 8: 20–26.
6. Duska LR, Flynn CF, Chen A, Whall-Strojwas D, Goodman A. Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91: 278–282.
7. Goff BA, Atanasoff P, Brown E, Muntz HG, Bell DA, Rice LW. Endocervical glandular atypia in Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 101–104.
8. Eddy GL, Strumpf KB, Wojtowycz MA, Piraino PS, Mazur MT. Biopsy findings in five hundred thirty one patients with atypical galndular cells of uncertain significance as defined by the Bethesda system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 1188–1195.
9. Zweizig S, Noller K, Reale F, Collis S, Resseguie L. Neoplasia associated with atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 65: 314–318.
10. Fiorella RM, Casafrancisco D, Yojota S, Krangel PJ. Artifactual endocervical atypia induced by endocervical brush collection. Diagnostic Cytopathol 1994; 11: 79–84.
11. Raab SS, Isacson C, Layfield LJ, Lenel JC, Slagel DD, Thomas PA. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: cytologic criteria to separate clinically significant from benign lesions. Am J Clin Pathol 1995; 104: 574–582.
12. Raab SS, Snider TE, Potts SA et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability using select cytologic criteria. Am J Clin Pathol 1997; 107: 299–307.
13. Bose S, Kannan V, Kline TS. Abnormal endocervical cells: really abnormal? Really endocervical Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 101: 708–713.
14. Lee KR, Manna EA, StJohn T. Atypical endocervical cells: accuracy of cytologic diagnosis. Diagnostic Cytopathol 1995; 13: 202–208.
15. Heaton RB, Harris TF, Larson DM, Henry MR. 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.
16. Hanau CA, Begley N, Bibbo M. Cervical endometriosis: a potential pitfall in the evaluation of glandular cells in cervical smears. Diagnostic Cytopathol 1997; 16: 274–280.
17. Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells in cervical smears from women who have undergone cone biopsy: a potential diagnostic pitfall. Acta Cytologica 1993; 37: 705–709.
18. Chakrabarti S, Fernando FB, Parakevas M. Brush vs spatula for cervical smears: histologic correlation with concurrent biopsies. Acta Cytologica 1994; 38: 315–318.