Atypical Glandular Cells - An Update

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 271-279

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

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

Author keywords

AGC; Bethesda system; Cervicovaginal cytology; Pap smear

Indexed keywords

CARCINOMA IN SITU; CYTOLOGY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STANDARDIZATION; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0242299637     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.10316     Document Type: Review

References (84)

1. Anonymous. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA 1989;262:931-934.
2. 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;37:115-124.
3. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287: 2114-2119.
4. 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;30:816-825.
5. Wilbur D, Chhieng D, Cox JT, et al: AGUS draft recommendations Bethesda 2001 Workshop 2001.
6. Lee KR, Manna EA, St John T. Atypical endocervical glandular cells: accuracy of cytologic diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;13:202-208.
7. Cheng RF, Hernandez E, Anderson LL, Heller PB, Shank R. Clinical significance of a cytologic diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. J Reprod Med 1999;44:922-928.
8. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ, Conference AS-SC. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-2129.
9. Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cohen JM, Cangiarella JF. Clinical implications of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance, favor endometrial origin. Cancer 2001;93:351-356.
10. Biscotti CV, Gero MA, Toddy SM, Fischler DF, Easley KA. Endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ: an analysis of cellular features. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:326-332.
11. Betsill WL Jr, Clark AH. Early endocervical glandular neoplasia. I. Histomorphology and cytomorphology. Acta Cytol 1986;30:115-126.
12. Siziopikou KP, Wang HH, Abu-Jawdeh G. Cytologic features of neoplastic lesions in endocervical glands. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:1-7.
13. 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.
14. Lee KR, Manna EA, Jones MA. Comparative cytologic features of adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol 1991;35:117-126.
15. Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells in cervical smears from women who have undergone cone biopsy. A potential diagnostic pitfall. Acta Cytol 1993;37:705-709.
16. Raab SS. Can glandular lesions be diagnosed in pap smear cytology? Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:127-133.
17. Yahr LJ, Lee KR. Cytologic findings in microglandular hyperplasia of the cervix. Diagn Cytopathol 1991;7:248-251.
18. Selvaggi SM, Haefner HK. Microglandular endocervical hyperplasia and tubal metaplasia: pitfalls in the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma on cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:168-173.
19. Shrago SS. The Arias-Stella reaction. A case report of a cytologic presentation. Acta Cytol 1977;21:310-313.
20. Novotny DB, Maygarden SJ, Johnson DE, Frable WJ. Tubal metaplasia. A frequent potential pitfall in the cytologic diagnosis of endocervical glandular dysplasia on cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1992;36:1-10.
21. Cenci M, Mancini R, Nofroni I, Vecchione A. Endocervical atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. I. Morphometric and cytologic characterization of cases that "cannot rule out adenocarcinoma in situ." Acta Cytol 2000;44:319-326.
22. Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cangiarella JF, Cohen JM. Significance of AGUS Pap smears in pregnant and postpartum women. Acta Cytol 2001;45:294-299.
23. Michael CW, Esfahani FM. Pregnancy-related changes: a retrospective review of 278 cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:99-107.
24. 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.
25. Bose S, Kannan V, Kline TS. Abnormal endocervical cells. Really abnormal? Really endocervical? Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:708-713.
26. 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;46:458-464.
27. Lee KR, Flynn CE. Early invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Cancer 2000;89:1048-1055.
28. Wilbur DC. Endocervical glandular atypia: a "new" problem for the cytologist. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;13:463-469.
29. Jonasson JG, Wang HH, Antonioli DA, Ducatman BS. Tubal metaplasia of the uterine cervix: a prevalence study in patients with gynecologic pathologic findings. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1992;11:89-95.
30. 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.
31. Valente PT, Schantz HD, Schultz M. Cytologic atypia associated with microglandular hyperplasia. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;10:326-331.
32. 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;32:325-330.
33. 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;45:163-168.
34. 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.
35. Raab SS, Geisinger KR, Silverman JF, Thomas PA, Stanley MW. Interobserver variability of a Papanicolaou smear diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Clin Pathol 1998; 110:653-659.
36. Simsir A, Hwang S, Cangiarella JF, et al. Glandular cells on Pap smears: interobserver variability in the diagnosis and the prediction of the cell of origin. Cancer Cytopathology (in press)
37. DiTomasso JP, Ramzy I, Mody DR. Glandular lesions of the cervix. Validity of cytologic criteria used to differentiate reactive changes, glandular intraepithelial lesions and adenocarcinoma. Acta Cytol 1996;40:1127-1135.
38. Birdsong GG, Mody DR, Lozano RL, Volk EE, Davey DD, Renshaw AA. Adenocarcinoma in situ is significantly more difficult to identify and categorize than adenocarcinoma, high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Cytol 2002;46:922.
39. 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;107:30-35.
40. Mitchell H, Higgins V. Recent negative cytology prior to histologically confirmed carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;34:178-181.
41. 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;99:314-318.
42. Andersen ES, Arffmann E. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: a clinico-pathologic study of 36 cases. Gynecol Oncol 1989;35:1-7.
43. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, Humcevic J, Laverty CR. Comparison of ThinPrep and Pap smear in relation to prediction of adenocarcinoma in situ. Acta Cytol 1999;43:74-80.
44. Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol 1999;43:81-85.
45. Chhieng DC, Elgert PA, Cangiarella JF, Cohen JM. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. A follow-up study from an academic medical center. Acta Cytol 2000; 44:557-566.
46. 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.
47. Burja IT, Thompson SK, Sawyer WL Jr, Shurbaji MS. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical smears. A study with cytohistologic correlation. Acta Cytol 1999;43:351-356.
48. Eddy GL, Ural SH, Strumpf KB, Wojtowycz MA, Piraino PS, Mazur MT. Incidence of atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance in cervical cytology following introduction of the Bethesda System. Gynecol Oncol 1997;67:51-55.
49. Geier CS, Wilson M, Creasman W. Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:64-69.
50. Korn AP, Judson PL, Zaloudek CJ. Importance of atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance in cervical cytologic smears. J Reprod Med 1998;43:774-778.
51. 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.
52. Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cangiarella JF, Cohen JM. Variation in the incidence of AGUS between different patient populations. Acta Cytol 2001;45:287-293.
53. Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cohen JM, Cangiarella JF. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in postmenopausal women. Cancer 2001;93:1-7.
54. Nasu I, Meurer W, Fu YS. Endocervical glandular atypia and adenocarcinoma: a correlation of cytology and histology. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12:208-218.
55. Valdini A, Vaccaro C, Pechinsky G, Abernathy V. Incidence and evaluation of an AGUS Papanicolaou smear in primary care. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001;14:172-177.
56. Kinney WK, Manos MM, Hurley LB, Ransley JE. Where's the high-grade cervical neoplasia? The importance of minimally abnormal Papanicolaou diagnoses. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:973-976.
57. Austin RM, Ramzy I. Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic cytology preparations. A review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol 1998;42:178-184.
58. Hutchinson ML, Agarwal P, Denault T, Berger B, Cibas ES. A new look at cervical cytology. ThinPrep multicenter trial results. Acta Cytol 1992;36:499-504.
59. Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM. Use of the Thin Prep Pap Test in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;20:70-73.
60. 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;42:203-208.
61. Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S, James LP, Berger BM, Bonfiglio TA. ThinPrep Processor. Clinical trials demonstrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:209-214.
62. Bai H, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM. ThinPrep Pap test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:19-22.
63. Eltabbakh GH, Lipman JN, Mount SL, Morgan A. Significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on ThinPrep Papanicolaou smears. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78:245-250.
64. 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.
65. Wang N, Emancipator SN, Rose P, Rodriguez M, Abdul-Karim FW. Histologic follow-up of atypical endocervical cells. Liquid-based, thin-layer preparation vs. conventional Pap smear. Acta Cytol 2002; 46:453-457.
66. Johnson JE, Rahemtulla A. Endocervical glandular neoplasia and its mimics in ThinPrep Pap tests. A descriptive study. Acta Cytol 1999; 43:369-375.
67. Selvaggi SM. Cytologic features of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions involving endocervical glands on ThinPrep cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:181-185.
68. http://www.asccp.org/pdfs/consensus/algorithms.pdf
69. Denehy TR, Gregori CA, Breen JL. Endocervical curettage, cone margins, and residual adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:1-6.
70. 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;73:292-298.
71. Wolf JK, Levenback C, Malpica A, Morris M, Burke T, Mitchell MF. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: significance of cone biopsy margins. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:82-86.
72. 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.
73. Azodi M, Chambers SK, Rutherford TJ, Kohorn EI, Schwartz PE, Chambers JT. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: management and outcome. Gynecol Oncol 1999;73:348-353.
74. Ostor AG, Duncan A, Quinn M, Rome R. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: an experience with 100 cases. Gynecol Oncol 2000;79:207-210.
75. 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;88:1108-1121.
76. Chhieng DC, Elgert PA, Xiong Y, Cangiarella JF, Cohen JM. Use of computer-assisted rescreening as an ancillary tool to subclassify AGUS cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:165-170.
77. Goff BA, Atanasoff P, Brown E, Muntz HG, Bell DA, Rice LW. Endocervical glandular atypia in Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:101-104.
78. Schindler S, Pooley RJ Jr, De Frias DV, Yu GH, Bedrossian CW. Follow-up of atypical glandular cells in cervical-endocervical smears. Ann Diagn Pathol 1998;2:312-317.
79. Veljovich DS, Stoler MH, Andersen WA, Covell JL, Rice LW. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: a five-year retrospective histopathologic study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:382-390.
80. Manetta A, Keefe K, Lin F, Ahdoot D, Kaleb V. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in cervical cytologic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:883-888.
81. Chin AB, Bristow RE, Korst LM, Walts A, Lagasse LD. The significance of atypical glandular cells on routine cervical cytologic testing in a community-based population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1278-1282.
82. Soofer SB, Sidawy MK. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: clinically significant lesions and means of patient follow-up. Cancer 2000;90:207-214.
83. Hammoud MM, Haefner HK, Michael CW, Ansbacher R. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Histologic findings and proposed management. J Reprod Med 2002;47:266-270.
84. Nasuti JF, Fleisher SR, Gupta PK. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): clinical considerations and cytohistologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:186-190.