Early detection of cervical neoplasia: Narrowing the cytohistologic divide

International Journal of Gynecological Pathology

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-3

  Bedrossian, Carlos W M ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANADA; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DYSPLASIA; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNIQUES; CONSENSUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; TIME FACTORS; TUMOR VIRUS INFECTIONS; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0037215192     PISSN: 02771691     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00004347-200301000-00001     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989;261:737-43.
2. Reagan JW, Seidemand IL, Saracusa Y. The cellular morphology of carcinoma in situ and dysplasia or atypical hyperplasia of the uterine cervix. Cancer 1953;6:224-35.
3. Richart RM. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Pathol Annu 1973;8:301-28.
4. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnosis: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes for Terminology and Specimen Adequacy. New York: Springer Verlag, 1994.
5. Sherman ME, Tabbara SO, Scott DR. ASCUS, rule out HSIL: Cytologic features, histologic correlates and human papillomavirus detection. Mod Pathol 1999;12:335-42.
6. Wright TC, Cox T, Massad D, et al. 2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-9.
7. Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Inter-observer reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: Realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001;285:1500-5.
8. Sellers JW, Nieminen P, Vesterinen E, et al. Observer variability in the scoring of colpophotographs. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:1006-8.
9. Ferris CG, Cox JT, Burke L, et al. Colposcopy quality control: Establishing colposcopy criterion standards for the ALTS Trial using cervigrams. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 1998;2:195-203.
10. Crum CP. Should the Bethesda system terminology be used in diagnostic surgical pathology? Point. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2003;22:5-12.
11. Patten SF. Diagnostic Cytology of the Uterine Cervix. 2nd Ed. Basel: S. Karger, 1978.
12. Schindler S, Pooley RJ, De Frias DVS, Bedrossian CWM. Followup of atypical glandular cells in cervical-endocervical smears. Ann Diagn Pathol 1998;2:312-7.
13. Ioffe OB, Sagae S, Moritani S, et al. Should pathologists diagnose endocervical preneoplastic lesions "less than" adenocarcinoma in situ? Int J Gynecol Pathol 2003;22:18-21.
14. Schneider V. Should the Bethesda System terminology be used in diagnostic surgical pathology? Counterpoint. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2003;22:13-7.
15. Selvaggi SM. Implications of low diagnostic reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic diagnoses. JAMA 2001;285:1506-8.
16. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: Terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002:2114-9.
17. Lee KR. Should pathologists diagnose preneoplastic lesions "less than" adenocarcinoma in situ? Int J Gynecol Pathol 2003;22:22-4.
18. Bedrossian CW, Gudlaugsson E. Alternative techniques in cervical cancer diagnosis. In: Grohs HK, Hussain OAN, eds. Automated Cervical Cancer Screening. New York: Igaku-Shoin, 1994:78-117.