The 2001 Bethesda System Terminology

American Family Physician

Volumn 68, Issue 10, 2003, Pages 1992-1998

  Apgar, Barbara S ^a,f   Zoschnick, Lauren ^a,c   Wright Jr , Thomas C ^b,d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^d Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^e NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^f Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYTOLOGY; HUMAN; NOMENCLATURE; REVIEW; SQUAMOUS CELL; SQUAMOUS EPITHELIUM; TISSUE SECTION; UTERINE CERVIX DISEASE; VAGINA DISEASE;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; ENDOMETRIAL HYPERPLASIA; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS, SQUAMOUS CELL; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; TERMINOLOGY; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0344009442     PISSN: 0002838X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/ vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA 1989;262:931-4.
2. Broder S. From the National Institutes of Health. Rapid Communication - The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses-Report of the 1991 Bethesda Workshop. JAMA 1992;267:1892.
3. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-9.
4. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ; ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-9.
5. Mintzer M, Curtis P, Resnick JC, Morrell D. The effect of the quality of Papanicolaou smears on the detection of cytologic abnormalities. Cancer 1999; 87:113-7.
6. Bos AB, van Ballegooijen M, Elske van den Akkervan Marle M, Hanselaar AG, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD. Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;115:851-5.
7. O'Sullivan JP, A'Hern RP, Chapman PA, Jenkins L, Smith R, al-Nafussi A, et al. A case-control study of true-positive versus false-negative cervical smears in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) III. Cytopathology 1998;9:155-61.
8. Mitchell HS. Longitudinal analysis of histologic high-grade disease after negative cervical cytology according to endocervical status. Cancer 2001;93:237-40.
9. Kost ER, Snyder RR, Schwartz LE, Hankins GD. The "less than optimal" cytology; importance in obstetric patients and in a routine gynecologic population. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:127-30.
10. Young W. Comparison of transformation zone sampling rates - a potentially useful indicator of smear taker performance. Cytopathology 2000;11:116-23.
11. Jones BA, Davey DD. Quality management in gynecologic cytology using interlaboratory comparison. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:672-81.
12. Ransdell JS, Davey DD, Zaleski S. Clinicopathologic correlation of the unsatisfactory Papanicolaou smear. Cancer 1997;81:139-43.
13. Davey DD. Bethesda 2001: science, technology, and democracy join forces for patient care. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:135-6.
14. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York, N.Y.: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
15. Crum CP, Genest DR, Krane JF, Hogan C, Sun D, Bellerose B, et al. Subclassifying atypical squamous cells in Thin-Prep cervical cytology correlates with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;112:384-90.
16. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study or 22,439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120:523-31.
17. Lachman MF, Cavallo-Calvanese C. Qualification of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in an independent laboratory: is it useful or significant? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:421-9.
18. Kinney WK, Manos M, Hurley LB, Ransley JE. Where's the high-grade cervical neoplasia? The importance of minimally abnormal Papanicolaou diagnoses. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:973-6.
19. Smith AE, Sherman ME, Scott DR, Tabbara SO, Dworkin L, Olson J, et al. Review of the Bethesda System atlas does not improve reproducibility or accuracy in the classification of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance smears. Cancer 2000;90:201-6.
20. Stoler MH, Schiffman M; Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates for the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001;285:1500-5.
21. Sherman ME, Tabbara SO, Scott DR, Kurman RJ, Glass AG, Manos MM, et al. "ASCUS, rule out HSIL": cytologic features, histologic correlates, and human papillomavirus detection. Mod Pathol 1999;12:335-42.
22. Sherman ME, Solomon D, Schiffman M; ASCUS LSIL Triage Study Group. Qualification of ASCUS. A comparison of equivocal LSIL and equivocal HSIL in cervical cytology in the ASCUS LSIL Triage Study. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:386-94.
23. Joste NE, Rushing L, Granados R, Zitz JC, Genest DR, Crum CP, et al. Bethesda classification of cervicovaginal smears: reproducibility and viral correlates. Hum Pathol 1996;27:581-5.
24. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:390-6.
25. Duggan MA, Brasher PM. Accuracy of Pap tests reported as CIN I. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:129-36.
26. Geier CS, Wilson M, Creasman W. Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:64-9.
27. Davey DD, Woodhouse S, Styer P, Stastny J, Mody D. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy: current laboratory practices of participants in the college of American pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124:203-11.
28. Mathers ME, Johnson SJ, Wadehra V. How predictive is a cervical smear suggesting glandular neoplasia? Cytopathology 2002;13:83-91.
29. Krane JF, Granter SR, Trask CE, Hogan CL, Lee KR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases. Cancer 2001;93:8-15.
30. Schoolland M, Allpress S, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Cancer 2002;96:5-13.
31. Karim BO, Burroughs FH, Rosenthal DL, Ali SZ. Endometrial-type cells in cervico-vaginal smears: clinical significance and cytopathologic correlates. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:123-7.