Atypical glandular cells

Clinics in Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 633-657

  Chhieng, David C ^a   Cangiarella, Joan F ^b  

^a University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATYPICAL GLANDULAR CELL; CYTOLOGY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ENDOMETRIUM; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; NEOPLASM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE ENDOCERVIX;

EID: 0141842753     PISSN: 02722712     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0272-2712(03)00057-X     Document Type: Review

References (94)

1. Anonymous. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA 1989;262:931-4.
2. Kurman R, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: definitions, criteria and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1994.
3. Solomon D, Frable WJ, Vooijs GP, et al. ASCUS and AGUS criteria. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic cytology towards the 21st century: an international expert conference and tutorial. Acta Cytol 1998;42:16-24.
4. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-9.
5. Ronnett BM, Manos MM, Ransley JE, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): cytopathologic features, histopathologic results, and human papillomavirus DNA detection. Hum Pathol 1999;30:816-25.
6. Cheng RF, Hernandez E, Anderson LL, et al. Clinical significance of a cytologic diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. J Reprod Med 1999;44:922-8.
7. Chhieng DC, Elgert PA, Cangiarella JF, et al. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. A follow-up study from an academic medical center. Acta Cytol 2000;44:557-66.
8. Lee KR, Manna EA, St John T. Atypical endocervical glandular cells: accuracy of cytologic diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;13:202-8.
9. Wilbur D, Chhieng D, Cox JT, et al. AGUS draft recommendations Bethesda 2001 Workshop. 2001.
10. Wright TC Jr. Cox JT, Massad LS, et al. Conference ASCCP. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-9.
11. Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cohen JM, et al. Clinical implications of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance, favor endometrial origin. Cancer 2001;93:351-6.
12. Betsill WL Jr. Clark AH. Early endocervical glandular neoplasia. I. Histomorphology and cytomorphology. Acta Cytol 1986;30:115-26.
13. Biscotti CV, Gero MA, Toddy SM, et al. Endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ: an analysis of cellular features. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:326-32.
14. Siziopikou KP, Wang HH, Abu-Jawdeh G. Cytologic features of neoplastic lesions in endocervical glands. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:1-7.
15. Anonymous. 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.
16. Cenci M, Mancini R, Nofroni I, et al. Endocervical atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. I. Morphometric and cytologic characterization of cases that "cannot rule out adenocarcinoma in situ". Acta Cytol 2000;44:319-26.
17. Lee KR, Manna EA, Jones MA. Comparative cytologic features of adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol 1991;35:117-26.
18. Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cangiarella JF, et al. Significance of AGUS Pap smears in pregnant and postpartum women. Acta Cytol 2001;45:294-9.
19. Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells in cervical smears from women who have undergone cone biopsy. A potential diagnostic pitfall. Acta Cytol 1993;37:705-9.
20. Shrago SS. The Arias Stella reaction. A case report of a cytologic presentation. Acta Cytol 1977;21:310-3.
21. Yahr LJ, Lee KR. Cytologic findings in microglandular hyperplasia of the cervix. Diagn Cytopathol 1991;7:248-51.
22. Selvaggi SM, Haefner HK. Microglandular endocervical hyperplasia and tubal metaplasia: pitfalls in the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma on cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:168-73.
23. 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.
24. Raab SS. Can glandular lesions be diagnosed in pap smear cytology? Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:127-33.
25. Raab SS, Bishop NS, Zaleski MS. Effect of cervical disease history on outcomes of women who have a pap diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Gynecol Oncol 1999;74:460-4.
26. Michael CW, Esfahani FM. Pregnancy-related changes: a retrospective review of 278 cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:99-107.
27. Raab SS, Isacson C, Layfield LJ, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Cytologic criteria to separate clinically significant from benign lesions. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;104:574-82.
28. Bose S, Kannan V, Kline TS. Abnormal endocervical cells. Really abnormal? Really endocervical? Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:708-13.
29. Salomao DR, Hughes JH, Raab SS. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance favor endometrial origin. Criteria for separating low grade endometrial adenocarcinoma from benign endometrial lesions. Acta Cytol 2002;46:458-64.
30. Yancey M, Magelssen D, Demaurez A, et al. Classification of endometrial cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:1000-5.
31. Zucker PK, Kasdon EJ, Feldstein ML. The validity of Pap smear parameters as predictors of endometrial pathology in menopausal women. Cancer 1985;56:2256-63.
32. Cherkis RC, Patten SF Jr. Andrews TJ, et al. Significance of normal endometrial cells detected by cervical cytology. Obstetr Gyneco 1988;71:242-4.
33. Cherkis RC, Patten SF Jr. Dickinson JC, et al. Significance of atypical endometrial cells detected by cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:786-9.
34. Kerpsack JT, Finan MA, Kline RC. Correlation between endometrial cells on Papanicolaou smear and endometrial carcinoma. South Med J 1998;91:749-52.
35. Krumins I, Young Q, Pacey F, et al. The cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix uteri. Acta Cytol 1977;21:320-9.
36. Clark AH, Betsill WL Jr. Early endocervical glandular neoplasia. II. Morphometric analysis of the cells. Acta Cytol 1986;30:127-34.
37. Hong SR, Park JS, Kim HS. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in cervical smears after conization. Cytologic features differentiating them from adenocarcinoma in situ. Acta Cytol 2001;45:163-8.
38. 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;31:397-411.
39. Patten SF. Diagnostic cytopathology of the uterine cervix. In: Wied GL, editor. Monographs in clinical cytology, edition 2. Basel (Switzerland): S. Karger; 1978. p. 288-93.
40. Reagan JW, Ng AP. The cells of uterine adenocarcinoma. Basel (Switzerland): S. Karger; 1978.
41. Lee KR, Flynn CE. Early invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Cancer 2000;89:1048-55.
42. 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;107:30-5.
43. 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;32:325-30.
44. 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;9:98-103 [discussion 104-105].
45. Valente PT, Schantz HD, Schultz M. Cytologic atypia associated with microglandular hyperplasia. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;10:326-31.
46. Selvaggi SM. Cytologic features of squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving endocervical glands in endocervical cytobrush specimens. Acta Cytol 1994;38:687-92.
47. Wilbur DC. Endocervical glandular atypia: a "new" problem for the cytologist. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;13:463-9.
48. Johnson JE, Rahemtulla A. Endocervical glandular neoplasia and its mimics in ThinPrep Pap tests. A descriptive study. Acta Cytol 1999;43:369-75.
49. Selvaggi SM. Cytologic features of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions involving endocervical glands on ThinPrep cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:181-5.
50. Geirsson G, Woodworth FE, Patten SF Jr, et al. Epithelial repair and regeneration in the uterine cervix. I. An analysis of the cells. Acta Cytol 1977;21:371-8.
51. Jonasson JG, Wang HH, Antonioli DA, et al. Tubal metaplasia of the uterine cervix: a prevalence study in patients with gynecologic pathologic findings. Int J Gyn Pathol 1992;11:89-95.
52. 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;12:263-8 [discussion 268-71].
53. Lee KR, Darragh TM, Joste NE, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): Interobserver reproducibility in cervical smears and corresponding thin-layer preparations. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:96-102.
54. Raab SS, Geisinger KR, Silverman JF, et al. Interobserver variability of a Papanicolaou smear diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Clin Pathol 1998;110:653-9.
55. Cullimore JE, Luesley DM, Rollason TP, et al. A prospective study of conization of the cervix in the management of cervical intraepithelial glandular neoplasia (CIGN) - a preliminary report. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:314-8.
56. Andersen ES, Arffmann E. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: a clinicopathologic study of 36 cases. Gynecol Oncol 1989;35:1-7.
57. Mitchell H, Higgins V. Recent negative cytology prior to histologically confirmed carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Austr N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;34:178-81.
58. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and Pap smear in relation to prediction of adenocarcinoma in situ. Acta Cytol 1999;43:74-80.
59. Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, et al. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol 1999;4:81-5.
60. Duska LR, Flynn CF, Chen A, et al. Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:278-82.
61. Burja IT, Thompson SK, Sawyer WL Jr, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical smears. A study with cytohistologic correlation. Acta Cytol 1999;43:351-6.
62. Eddy GL, Ural SH, Strumpf KB, et al. Incidence of atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance in cervical cytology following introduction of the Bethesda System. Gynecol Oncol 1997;67:51-5.
63. Geier CS, Wilson M, Creasman W. Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:64-9.
64. Korn AP, Judson PL, Zaloudek CJ. Importance of atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance in cervical cytologic smears. J Reprod Med 1998;43:774-8.
65. Zweizig S, Noller K, Reale F, et al. Neoplasia associated with atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 1997;65:314-8.
66. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22 439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120:523-31.
67. Goff BA, Atanasoff P, Brown E, et al. Endocervical glandular atypia in Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:101-4.
68. Nasu I, Meurer W, Fu YS. Endocervical glandular atypia and adenocarcinoma: a correlation of cytology and histology. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12:208-18.
69. Kennedy AW, Salmieri SS, Wirth SL, et al. Results of the clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGCUS) detected on cervical cytology screening. Gynecol Oncol 1996;63:14-8.
70. Schindler S, Pooley RJ Jr, De Frias DV, et al. Follow-up of atypical glandular cells in cervical-endocervical smears. Ann Diagn Pathol 1998;2:312-7.
71. Veljovich DS, Stoler MH, Andersen WA, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: a five-year retrospective histopathologic study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:382-90.
72. Kim TJ, Kim HS, Park CT, et al. Clinical evaluation of follow-up methods and results of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS) detected on cervicovaginal Pap smears. Gynecol Oncol 1999;73:292-8.
73. Manetta A, Keefe K, Lin F, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in cervical cytologic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:883-8.
74. Chin AB, Bristow RE, Korst LM, et al. The significance of atypical glandular cells on routine cervical cytologic testing in a community-based population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1278-82.
75. Soofer SB, Sidawy MK. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: clinically significant lesions and means of patient follow-up. Cancer 2000;90:207-14.
76. Valdini A, Vaccaro C, Pechinsky G, et al. Incidence and evaluation of an AGUS Papanicolaou smear in primary care. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001;14:172-7.
77. Nasuti JF, Fleisher SR, Gupta PK. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): clinical considerations and cytohistologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:186-90.
78. Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cangiarella JF, et al. Variation in the incidence of AGUS between different patient populations. Acta Cytol 2001;45:287-93.
79. Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cohen JM, et al. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in postmenopausal women. Cancer 2001;93:1-7.
80. Obenson K, Abreo F, Grafton WD. Cytohistologic correlation between AGUS and biopsy-detected lesions in postmenopausal women. Acta Cytol 2000;44:41-5.
81. Kinney WK, Manos MM, Hurley LB, et al. Where's the high-grade cervical neoplasia? The importance of minimally abnormal Papanicolaou diagnoses. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:973-6.
82. Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM. Use of the Thin Prep Pap Test in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;20:70-3.
83. Austin RM, Ramzy I. Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic cytology preparations. A review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol 1998;42:178-84.
84. Hutchinson ML, Agarwal P, Denault T, et al. A new look at cervical cytology. ThinPrep multicenter trial results. Acta Cytol 1992;36:499-504.
85. Papillo JL, Zarka MA, St John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice. A seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol 1998;42:203-8.
86. Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S, et al. ThinPrep Processor. Clinical trials demonstrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:209-14.
87. Eltabbakh GH, Lipman JN, Mount SL, et al. Significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on ThinPrep Papanicolaou smears. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78:245-50.
88. Bai H, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM. ThinPrep Pap Test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:19-22.
89. Hecht JL, Sheets EE, Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin-layer preparations. Cancer 2002;96:1-4.
90. Wang N, Emancipator SN, Rose P, et al. Histologic follow-up of atypical endocervical cells. Liquid-based, thin-layer preparation vs. conventional Pap smear. Acta Cytot 2002;46:453-7.
91. Denehy TR, Gregori CA, Breen JL. Endocervical curettage, cone margins, and residual adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:1-6.
92. Wolf JK, Levenback C, Malpica A, et al. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: significance of cone biopsy margins. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:82-6.
93. Chhieng DC, Elgert PA, Xiong Y, et al. Use of computer-assisted rescreening as an ancillary tool to subclassify AGUS cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:165-70.
94. Liao SY, Stanbridge EJ. Expression of MN/CA9 protein in Papanicolaou smears containing atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance is a diagnostic biomarker of cervical dysplasia and neoplasia. Cancer 2000;88:1108-21.