Cervical cytology classification and the Bethesda system

Cancer Journal

Volumn 9, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 327-334

  Davey, Diane D ^a,b  

^a University of Kentucky Medical Center ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Bethesda; Carcinoma; Cervical cancer intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervical Papanicolaou smear; Cervix; Cytological techniques; Cytology; Dysplasia; Terminology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOGENESIS; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; EPITHELIUM CELL; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NOMENCLATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; PATHOLOGY; REVIEW; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 1542544621     PISSN: 15289117     EISSN: 1540336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00130404-200309000-00002     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1941;42:193-206.
2. Ayre JE. Selective cytology smear for diagnosis of cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1947;53:609-617.
3. Koss LG. Cervical (Pap) smear: new directions. Cancer 1993;71:1406-1412.
4. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. JAMA 1989; 262:931-934.
5. Reagan JW, Seidemann IL, Saracusa Y. The cellular morphology of carcinoma in situ and dysplasia or atypical hyperplasia of the uterine cervix. Cancer 1953;6:224-235.
6. Koss LG. Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic Bases, 4th ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co, 1992.
7. Richart RM. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1967;10:748-784.
8. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda Workshop. JAMA 1992;267:1892.
9. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
10. Solomon D, Davey DD, Kurman R et al. The 2001 Bethesda system: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-2119.
11. Davey DD, Woodhouse S, Styer P et al. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy: current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists lnterlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Path Lab Med 2000;124:203-211.
12. Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:342-362.
13. Wright TC, Cox JT, Massad LS et al. 2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-2129 (www.asccp.org).
14. Solomon D, Nayar R (eds) The Bethesda System: for Reporting Cervical Cytology, 2d ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004 (in press).
15. Renshaw AA, Friedman MM, Rahemtulla A et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of estimating the adequacy of the squamous component of cervicovaginal smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111:38-42.
16. Baer A, Kiviat NB, Kulasingam S et al. Liquid-based Papanicolaou smears without a transformation zone component: should clinicians worry? Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:1053-1059.
17. Bos AB, van Bellagooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle ME et al. Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Paihol 2001;115:851-855.
18. Martin-Hirsch P, Lilford R, Jarvis G et al. Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 1999;354:1763-1770.
19. Davey DD, Austin RM, Birdsong G et al. ASCCP patient management guidelines: Pap test specimen adequacy and quality indicators. J Lower Gen Tract Dis 2002;6:195-199 (www.jlgtd.com, July 2002).
20. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:714-718.
21. Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR et al. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States: a 24-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 2000;78:97-105.
22. Haroon S, Samayoa L, Witzke D et al. Reproducibilily of cervicovaginal ThinPrep cellularity assessment. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:19-21.
23. Ransdell JS, Davey DD, Zaleski S. Clinicopathologic correlation of the unsatisfactory Papanicolaou smear. Cancer 1997;81:139-143.
24. 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.
25. 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;91:973-976.
26. Sherman ME, Solomon D, Schiffman M and the ALTS Study Group. Comparison of equivocal LSIL and equivocal HSIL cervical cytology in the ASCUS LSIL Triage Study. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:386-394.
27. Adams KC, Absher KJ, Brill YM et al. Reproducibility of subclassification of squamous intraepitheltal lesions: conventional versus ThinPrep Paps. J Lower Gen Tract Dis; 2003;7:203-208.
28. Woodhouse SL, Stastny JF, Styer PE et al. Interobserver variability in subclassification of squamous imraepithelial lesions: results of the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Path Lab Med 1999;123:1079-1084.
29. Clavel C, Masure M, Bory J-P et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer 2001;84:1616-1623.
30. Kulasingam SI, Hughes JP, Kiviat NB et al. Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral. JAMA 2002;288:1749-1757.