Diagnosis and survey of Abnormal/Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance and Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions: A retrospective study

Anticancer Research

Volumn 20, Issue 2 B, 2000, Pages 1195-1199

  Giudice, Aldo ^a   Rizzo, Massimo ^b,c   Talamo Rossi, Raffaele ^b   Bonaffini, Orsola ^b   Buda, Carmelo Antonio ^b   Pettineo, Giuseppe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MESSINA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MESSINA   (Italy)

^c NONE   (Italy)

Author keywords

ASCUS LG HG SIL; Bethesda system; Pap test

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COLPOSCOPY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0034056110     PISSN: 02507005     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. The 1988 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute Workshop in Bethesda, December 12-13, 1988. Diagn Cytopatol 5: 331-334, 1989.
2. The 1988 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal citologic diagnoses: developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute Workshop, Bethesda. Acta Cytol 33: 567-574, 1989.
3. Giacomini G: Il sistema Bethesda. Notiziario di Citologia 1: 7-10, 1990.
4. The revised Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Report of the 1991 Bethesda Workshop. Acta Cytol 36: 273-276, 1992.
5. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Acta Cytol 37: 115-124, 1993.
6. Yao SF: Critique and criteria of Bethesda system for cervical smears. Dal seminario n. 59: Aggiornamenti in Isto e Citopatologia Oncologica. INT, Milano, 1993.
7. Kurman RJ, Solomon D: Il Sistema Bethesda. Per la classificazione delle diagnosi citologiche cervico-vaginali. Ed. italiana a cura del Prof. E. Baraggino. A.S. Macor Editori, 1994.
8. Gribaudi G, Claren R, Stillitani M: Il sistema Bethesda -Considerazioni e criteri morfologici applicativi. Biologi Italiani, n. 5, maggio 1997.
9. Jones HW: Impact of Bethesda System. Cancer 76: 1914-1918, 1995.
10. Sherman ME, Weinstein M, Sughayer M, et al: The Bethesda System. Impact on reporting cervico-vaginal specimens and reproducibility of criteria for assessing endo-cervical sampling. Acta Cytol 37: 55-60, 1993.
11. Kaufman RH: Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: diagnostic criteria and management. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1975: 1120-1128, 1996.
12. Alanen KW, Elit LM, Molinaro PA, et al: Assessment of cytologic follow-up as the recomended management for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathology) 84(1): 5-10, 1998.
13. Howell LP, Davis RL: Follow-up of Papanicolaou smears diagnosed as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Diagn Cytopathol 14: 20-24, 1996.
14. Terry RR: Management of patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) on Papanicolaou smears. J Am Osteopath Assoc 96(8): 465-468, 1996.
15. Hall S, Wu TC, Soudi N, et al: Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: cytologic predictors of biopsy confirmation. Diagn Cytopathol 10(1): 3-9, 1994.
16. Rizzo M, Bonanno A, Busà M, et al: L'attendibilità dell'esame citologico cervico-vaginale in funzione del prelievo. The Mediterranean Journal of Gynaecology vol 1, suppl. 3. 1989.
17. Rizzo M, Bonfiglio M, Talamo Rossi R, et al: Attività colpocitologica di screening presso il CPO e ICORT dell'Università di Messina, nel periodo giugno 1979-giugno 1990. Atti del 1° Congresso di Citopatologia cervico-vaginale dell'Associazione Italiana di Citologia (AIC), Forte dei Marmi (LI), Italy, 26-29 settembre, 1990.
18. Lundberg GD: Abnormal Pap smears. ASCUS still ob/gyn puzzle. JAMA Medical News and Perspectives - October 2, 1996.
19. Kurman RJ, Henson DE, Herbst AL, et al: Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology. JAMA 271: 1866-1869, 1994.
20. Kinney WK, Manos MM, Hurley LB, et al: Where's the high-grade cervical neoplasia? The importance of minimally abnormal Papanicolaou diagnoses. Obstet Gynaecol 91(6): 973-976, 1998.
21. Quitllet FA, Morta MC, Canas A, et al: Cytologic atypia: Clinical significance and follow-up recommendations. Acta Cytol 41: 504-506, 1997.
22. Horowitz IR: Improving the cost-effective evaluation and management of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions Cancer (Cancer Cytopathology) 84(1): 1-5, 1998.
23. Williams ML, Rimm DL, Pedigo MA, et al: Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: correlative histologic and follow-up studies from an academic medical center. Diagn Cytopathol 16(1): 1-7, 1997.
24. Kline MJ, Davey DD: Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance qualified: a follow- up study. Diagn Cytopathol 14: 380-384, 1996.
25. Getting a Handle on ASCUS. J Natl Cancer Inst 87(11): 787-790, 1995.
26. Yang M, Zachariah S: ASCUS on cervical cytologic smears. Clinical significance. J Reprod Med 42(6): 329-331, 1997.
27. Selvaggi SM, Haefner HK: Reporting of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance on cervical smears: is it significant? Diagn Cytopathol 13(4): 352-356, 1995.
28. Suh-Burgmann E, Darragh T, Smith-McCune K: Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: management patterns at an academic medical center. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 178(5): 941-995, 1998.
29. Slawson DC, Bennett JH, Simon LJ, et al: Should all women with cervical atypia be referred for colposcopy: a HARNET study. Harrisburgh Area Research Network. J Fam Pract 38(4): 387-392, 1994.
30. Ferris DG, Kriegel D, Cote L, et al: Women's triage and management preferences for cervical cytologie reports demonstrating atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Arch Fam Med 6(4): 348-353, 1997.
31. Genest DR, Dean B, Lee KR, et al: Qualifying the cytologic diagnosis of "atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance" affects the predictive value of a squamous intraepithelial lesion on subsequent biopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 122(4): 338-341, 1998.
32. Gonzalez D, Hernandez E, Anderson L, et al: Clinical significance of cervical cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Favoring a reactive process or low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. J Reprod Med 41(10): 719-723, 1996.
33. Confortini M et al: Rapporto sullo screening per la prevenzione del carcinoma della cervice uterina nell'ASL 10 - anno 1996. A cura del Centro di Riferimento Regionale per la Prevenzione Oncologica. Presidio di Prevenzione Oncologica (CSPO). Azienda Ospedaliera Careggi-Firenze (comunicazione personale), settembre 1998.
34. Barr Soofer S, Sidawy MK: Reactive cellular change: is there an increased risk for squamous intraepithelial lesions? Cancer (Cancer Cytopathology) 81(3): 144-147, 1997.
35. Cox JT, Lorinez AT, Schiffman MH. et al: Human papillomavirus testing by hybrid capture appears to be useful in tringing women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Obstet Gynaecol 172: 946-54, 1995.
36. Kurtycz D, Nunez M, Arts T, et al: Use of fluorescent in situ hybridization to detect aneuploidy in cervical dysplasia. Diagn Cytopathol 15(1): 46-51, 1996.
37. Liao SY, Stanbridge EJ: Expression of the MN antigen in cervical Papanicolaou smears is an early diagnostic hiomarker of cervical dysplasia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 5(7): 549-557, 1996.
38. Ferris DG, Wright TC Jr. Litaker MS, et al: Triage of women with ASCUS and LSIL on Pap smear reports: management by repeat Pap smear, HPV-DNA testing, or colposcopy? J Fam Pract 46(2): 125-134, 1998.
39. Recio FO, Sahai Srivastava BI, Wong C, et al: The clinical value of digene hybrid capture HPV-DNA testing in a referral-hased population with abnormal Pap smears. Eur J Cynaecol Oncol 19(3): 203-208, 1998.
40. Hall S, et al: Human papillomavirus DNA detection in cervical specimens by hybrid capture: correlation with cytologic and histologic diagnoses of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 62(3): 353-359, 1996.
41. 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 41(4): 1065-1072, 1997.
42. Rader AE, Lazehnik R, Arora CD, Franklin J and Abdul-Karim FW: Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance in the pediatric population. Implications for management and comparison with the adult population. Acta Cytol 41(4): 1073-1078, 1997.
43. Baldauf JJ, Ritter J: Comparison of the risks of cytologic surveillance of women with atypical cells or low-grade abnormalities on cervical smear: review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 76(2): 193-199, 1998.
44. Cecchini S, lossa A, Ciatto S, et al: Routine colposcopic survey of patients with squamous atypia: A method of identifying cases with false-negatives smears. Acta Cytol 34: 778-780, 1990.