The Bethesda System 2001: Update on terminology and application

Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 98-107

  Crothers, Barbara A ^a  

^a WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; CYTOLOGY; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; NOMENCLATURE; PATHOLOGY; SCREENING; WART VIRUS;

ALGORITHMS; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; FEMALE; HUMANS; TERMINOLOGY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 14844350456     PISSN: 00099201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.grf.0000151572.99437.a5     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119.
2. Mitchell H, Medley G. Differences between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology. 1995;6:368-375.
3. Mitchell H, Medley G. Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet. 1991;337:265-267.
4. Bos AB, vanBallegooijen M, Elskemvan den Akker-van Marie M, et al. Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:851-855.
5. Mintzer MP, Curtis P, Resnick JC, et al. The effect of the quality of Papanicolaou smears on the detection of cytologic abnormalities. Cancer. 1999;87:113-117.
6. Vooijs PG, Elias A, van der Graaf Y, et al. Relationship between the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities and the composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1985;29:323-328.
7. Young W. Comparison of transformation zone sampling rates-a potentially useful indicator of smear taker performance. Cytopathology. 2000;11:116-123.
8. Davey DD. Bethesda 2001 questionnaire results: how cervical cytology reporting rates have changed. CAP Today [serial online]. 2004;18:42-47. Available at: http://www. cap.org/apps/docs/captoday/papngc/NGC_ Bethesda.html. Accessed May 23, 2004.
9. Federal Register Part II, 42 CFR Part 74. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services Health Care Financing Administration; 1990;55:493.1257(4).
10. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R, for the ALTS Group. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:293-299.
11. Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA. 1999;281:1645-1647.
12. Bergeron C, Jeannel D, Proveda JD, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in women with mild cytologic atypia. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:821-827.
13. Gondas B, King EB. Significance of endometrial cells in cervicovaginal smears. Am Clin Lab Sci. 1997;7:489-490.
14. Cherkis RC, Pattern SF, Andrews TJ, et al. Significance of normal endometrial cells detected by cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71:242-244.
15. Gomez-Fernandez CR, Ganjei-Azar P, Capote-Dishaw J, et al. Reporting normal endometrial cells in Pap smears: an outcome appraisal. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;74:381-384.
16. Smith AE, Sherman ME, Scott DK 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;90:201-206.
17. Renshaw AA, Genest DR, Cibas ES. Should atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) be subcategorized? Accuracy analysis of Papanicolaou smears using receiver operating characteristic curves and implications for the ASCUS/squamous intraepithelial lesion ratio. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116:692-695.
18. Genest DR, Dean B, Lee KR, et al. Qualifying the cytologic diagnosis of "atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance" affects the predictive value of a squamous intraepithelial lesion on subsequent biopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:338-341.
19. Anton RC, Ramzy I, Schwartz MR, et al. Should the cytologic diagnosis of "atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance" be qualified? An assessment including comparison between conventional and liquid-based technologies. Cancer. 2001; 93:93-99.
20. Eltabbakh GH, Lipman JN, Mount SL, et al. Significance of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance on ThinPrep Papanicolaou smears. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 79:44-49.
21. Hughes SA, Sun D, Gibson C, et al. Managing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS): human papillomavirus testing, ASCUS subtyping or follow-up cytology? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186: 396-403.
22. Sherman ME, Solomon D, Schiffman M. Qualification of ASCUS. A comparison of equivocal LSIL and equivocal HSIL cervical cytology in the ASCUS LSIL Triage Study. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116:386-394.
23. Selvaggi SM. Reporting of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) on cervical samples: is it significant? Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;29:38-41.
24. Alli PM, Ali AZ. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance-rule out high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: cytopathologic characteristics and clinical correlates. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;28:308-312.
25. Louro AP, Roberson J, Eltoum I, et al. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. A follow-up study of conventional and liquid-based preparations in a high-risk population. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:392-397.
26. Cooper K, Evans M, Mount S. Biologic and evolution of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a hypothesis with diagnostic prognostic implications. Adv Anat Pathol. 2003;10:200-203.
27. McCluggage WG, Walsh MY, Thornton CM, et al. Inter- and intra-observer variation in the histopathologic reporting of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions using a modified Bethesda grading system. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105:206-210.
28. Confortini M, Biggeri A, Cariaggi MP, et al. Intralaboratory reproducibility in cervical cytology. Results of the application of a 100-slide set. Acta Cytol. 1993;37:49-54.
29. Woodhouse SL, Stastny JF, Styer PE, et al. Interobserver variability in subclassification of squamous intraepithelial lesions: results of the College of American Pathologists' Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123:1079-1084.
30. Robertson AJ, Anderson JM, Beck JS, et al. Observer variability in histopathologic reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 1989;42:231-238.
31. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probe study of 16132 cases from 306 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:665-671.
32. Eddy GL, Strumpf KB, Wojtowycz MA, et al. Biopsy findings in five hundred thirty-one patients with atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance as defined by the Bethesda System. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:1188-1195.
33. 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.
34. Jones BA, Novis DA. Follow-up of abnormal gynecologic cytology: a College of American Pathologists' Q-probes study of 16132 cases from 306 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:665-671.
35. Davey DD, Austin RM, Birdsong G, et al. ASCCP patient management guidelines. Pap test specimen adequacy and quality indicators. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118:714-718.