Subtyping borderline nuclear changes: Is it of value in predicting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia on histology?

Cytopathology

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 241-248

  Shanbhag, S ^a,b   Roberts, M ^a   Johnson, S J ^a   Wadehra, V ^a  

^a ROYAL VICTORIA INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^b ABERDEEN MATERNITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Borderline nuclear changes; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Dyskeratosis; Koilocytosis; Squamous metaplasia

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BORDERLINE NUCLEAR CHANGE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DYSKARYOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; KOILOCYTOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SQUAMOUS CELL METAPLASIA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

CELL NUCLEUS; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0141957344     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2003.00074.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting, and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology. Second edition including revised performance indicators. Johnson J, Patnick J (eds). NHSCSP Publication No. 1. Cytopathology 2000;11:212-41.
2. Borderline nuclear changes in cervical smears: guidelines on their recognition and management. NCN, BSCC, AND RCPath working party. J Clin Pathol 1994;47:481-92.
3. The revised Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop. Acta Cytol 1992;36:273-6.
4. Evans D, Hudson E, Brown C et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the working party of the BSCC. J Clin Pathol 1986;39:933-44.
5. Edwards J, Hermansen P, Hillier V, Howat A. Borderline nuclear change; can a subgroup be identified which is suspicious of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, i.e. CIN 2 or worse? Cytopathology 2002;13:267-72.
6. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone B for The ALTS Group. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS): baseline results from a randomised trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:293-9.
7. Smith J. Bethesda 2001. Review. Cytopathology 2002; 13:4-10.
8. Manos M, Kinney W, Hurley L et al. Identifying women with cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA 1999;281:1605-10.
9. Dudding N, Sutton J. BSCC terminology conference, koilocytosis and mild dyskaryosis. Correspondence. Cytopathology 2002;13:379-81.
10. Al-Nafussi A, Rebello G, Al-Yusif R, McGoogan E. The borderline smear: colposcopic and biopsy outcome. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:439-44.
11. Milne D, Wadehra V, Mennim D, Wagstaff T. A prospective follow-up study of women with colposcopically unconfirmed positive cervical smears. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106:38-41.
12. Heatley M. Follow up of women with borderline cervical smears as defined by national guidelines. J Clin Pathol 1999;52:787-8.
13. Herbert A, Nicoll A. Audit of borderline nuclear changes in cervical smears. Cytopathology 2002;13(Suppl. 1):6.
14. Morin C, Bairati I, Bouchard C et al. Cytologic predictors of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with an ASCUS Pap smear. Acta Cytologica 2000;44:576-86.
15. Vlahos P, Dragisic K, Wallach E, Burroughs F, Fluck S, Rosenthal D. Clinical significance of the qualification of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: an analysis on the basis of histologic diagnoses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:885-90.
16. Chang Chien C, Lin H, Eng H, Chang W. Clinical implication of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance with or without favoring high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion on cervical smears. Chang-Keng I Hsueh Tsa Chih 1999;22:579-85.
17. Ettler H, Joseph M, Downing P, Suskin N, Wright VC. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a cytohistological study in a colposcopy clinic. Diagnostic Cytopathology 1999;21:211-6.
18. Dvorak K, Finnemore M, Maksem J. Histology correlation with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology diagnoses: an argument to ensure ASCUS follow up that is as aggressive as that for LSIL. Diagn. Cytopathol. 1999;21:292-5.
19. Lousuebsakul V, Knutsen S, Gram I, Akin M. Clinical impact of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. A cytohistologic comparison. Acta Cytologica 2000;44:23-30.
20. Mathers M, Johnson S, Wadehra V. How predictive is a smear suggesting glandular neoplasia? Cytopathology 2002;13:83-91.
21. Bondi A, Caprara L, de Lillo M, Cortecchia S, de Bianchi P, Monari F. ASCUS in screening. Abstract. 28th European Congress of Cytology. Gynaecological Cytology 2002;100.
22. Rebello G, Hallam N, Smart G, Farquharson D, McCafferty J. Human papillomavirus testing and the management of women with mildly abnormal cervical smears: an observational study. BMJ 2001;322:893-4.
23. Kaminski P, Sorosky J, Wheelock J, Stevens C. The significance of atypical cervical cytology in an older population. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:1345.
24. Smith-McCune K, Mancuso V, Contant T, Jackson R. Management of women with atypical Papanicolaou tests of undetermined significance by board-certified gynecologists: discrepancies with published guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:551-6.
25. Daly S, Doyle M, English J, Turner M, Clinch J, Prendiville W. Can the number of cigarettes smoked predict high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia among women with mildly abnormal cervical smears? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:399-402.
26. Beeby A, Keating P, Wagstaff T et al The quality and accuracy of cervical cytology: a study of five sampling devices in a colposcopy clinic. J Obstetr Gynaecol 1993;13:276-81.