Clinical significance of unsatisfactory conventional Pap smears owing to inadequate squamous cellularity defined by the Bethesda 2001 criterion

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 123, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 738-743

  Adams, Amy L ^a   Gidley, Jonathan ^a   Roberson, Janie ^a   Wang, Wenquan ^b   Eltoum, Isam ^a   Chhieng, David C ^a,c  

^a University of Alabama at Birmingham   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Bethesda 2001; Cervicovaginal cytology; Follow up; Squamous cellularity; Unsatisfactory

Indexed keywords

ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELLS OF UNDETERMINED SIGNIFICANCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX DISEASE; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVIX EPITHELIUM;

EID: 17844372238     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/GA19KPY3YLMKVWYU     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. 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, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1994.
2. 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.
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. Sheffield MV, Simsir A, Talley L, et al. Interobserver variability in assessing adequacy of the squamous component in conventional cervicovaginal smears. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:367-373.
5. Pairwuti S. False-negative Papanicolaou smears from women with cancerous and precancerous lesions of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol. 1991;35:40-46.
6. Paterson ME, Peel KR, Joslin CA. Cervical smear histories of 500 women with invasive cervical cancer in Yorkshire. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984;289:896-898.
7. van der Graaf Y, Vooijs GP, Gaillard HL, et al. Screening errors in cervical cytologic screening. Acta Cytol. 1987;31:434-438.
8. Henry JA, Wadehra V. Influence of smear quality on the rate of detecting significant cervical cytologic abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:529-535.
9. 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.
10. Gill GW. Pap smear cellular adequacy: what does 10% coverage look like? what does it mean [abstract]? Acta Cytol. 2000;44:873.
11. Spires SE, Banks ER, Weeks JA, et al. Assessment of cervicovaginal smear adequacy: The Bethesda System guidelines and reproducibility. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;102:354-359.
12. Ransdell JS, Davey DD, Zaleski S. Clinicopathologic correlation of the unsatisfactory Papanicolaou smear. Cancer. 1997;81:139-143.
13. Fidda N, Miron J, Rodgers WH, et al. Impact of the new Bethesda System 2001 on specimen adequacy of conventional cervicovaginal smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30:235-239.
14. Stanford T, Zhang XJ, Stowell SB, et al. Specimen adequacy on liquid-based Pap tests: comparison of two Bethesda systems [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:82A.
15. Bolick DR, Lin KK. Effectively implementing the Bethesda System 2001 guidelines on specimen adequacy [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:929.
16. Basta N, Davey D, Banks H. Increase in unsatisfactory Pap tests with adoption of Bethesda 2001 criteria [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:929-930.
17. Papillo JL, St John TL. The effect of Bethesda 2001 on laboratory statistics [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:923.
18. Chhieng DC, Roberson J, Gidley et al. Bethesda 2001: impact on reporting of gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol. 2004;48:355-362.
19. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT Massad LS, et al, and the ASCCP Conference. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA. 2002;287:2120-2129.