BSCC, Bethesda or other? Terminology in cervical cytology European panel discussion

Cytopathology

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 113-119

  Kocjan, G ^a,k   Priollet, B C ^b   Desai, M ^c   Koutselini, H ^d   Mahovlic, V ^e   Oliveira, M H ^f   Pohar Marinsek, Z ^g   Sauer, T ^h   Schenk, U ⁱ   Shabalova, I ^j   Herbert, A ^c  

^a Cytopathology ^*  (United Kingdom)

^b French Cytology Society   (France)

^c British Society for Clinical Cytology   (United Kingdom)

^d Greek Cytology Society   (Greece)

^e Croatian Society for Clinical Cytology   (Croatia)

^f Portugese Cytology Society   (Portugal)

^g Slovenian Cytology Society   (Slovenia)

^h Norwegian Society for Clinical Cytology   (Norway)

ⁱ German Society for Cytology   (Germany)

^j Russian Association of Clinical Cytologists   (Russian Federation)

^k Dept of Histopathology   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Bethesda System; Cervical cancer; Cervical cytology; Cervical screening; CIN lesions; HPV; Terminology cervical cytology

Indexed keywords

CANCER GRADING; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NOMENCLATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA; WART VIRUS; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

CONSENSUS; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMANS; TERMINOLOGY; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 20444485098     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2005.00256.x     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Herbert A. Terminology for cervical cytology: two or three tiers? Why not five, seven or even fourteen? Cytopathology 2004;14:245-51.
2. Anderson CE, Lee AJ, McLaren KM et al. Level of agreement and biopsy correlation using two and three-tier systems to grade cervical dyskaryosis. Cytopathology 2004;15:256-62.
3. Rana DN, Persad RV, Desai M et al. 5 year outcome of women with borderline and mildly dyskaryotic cervical smears. Cytopathology 2004;15:263-70.
4. Evans DMD, Hudson EA, Brown CL et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J Clin Pathol 1986;39:933-44.
5. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes, 2nd edn. New York: Springer; 2003.
6. Achievable Standards. Benchmarks for Reporting and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytology. Report of a Working Party of the Royal College of Pathologists. Cytopathology 1995;6 (Supp. 2).
7. Borderline nuclear changes in cervical smears: guidelines on their recognition and management. National Coordinating Network (National Cervical Screening Programme), British Society for Clinical Cytology and Royal College of Pathologists' Working party. J Clin Pathol 1994;47:481-92.
8. Schenck U, Herbert A, Solomon D et al. Terminology: International Academy of Cytology Task Force Summary. Acta Cytol 1998;42:1-10.
9. Elit L, McLachlin M, Kirk ME, Cary M, Robins R. Management of colposcopy patients with biopsy-proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 1999;3:191-5.
10. Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet 2003;362:1871-6.
11. Mitchell MF, Tortelero-Luna G, Wright T et al. Cervical human papillomavirus infection and intraepithelial neoplasia: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1996;21:17-25.
12. Massad S, Collins YC, Cejtin HE. Histologic findings after a colposcopic biopsy showing CIN2. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 2002;6:23-6.
13. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004;364:249-56.
14. Department of Health. National Statistics, Statistical Bulletin. Cervical Screening Programme. England: Department of Health; 2002-03.
15. Herrington CS. Human papillomavirus (HPV) in gynaecological cytology from molecular biology to clinical testing. Cytopathology 1995;6:176-89.
16. Dudding N, Sutton J, Lane S. Koilocytosis: an indication for conservative management. Cytopathology 1996;7:32-7.
17. Mitchell H, Drake M, Medley G. Prospective evaluation of risk of cervical cancer after cytological evidence of human papillomavirus. Lancet 1986;i:573-5.
18. Borderline Nuclear Changes National Slide Exchange Study Group. Do borderline nuclear changes in gynaecological cytology constitute a reliable reporting category? Cytopathology 2002;13:220-31.
19. The ALTS-LSIL triage group. Results of a randomized trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1383-92.
20. Mathers ME, Johnson SJ, Wadehra V. How predictive is a smear suggesting glandular neoplasia? Cytopathology 2002;13:83-91.
21. Waddell C. Glandular neoplasms of the uterine cervix. Chapter 32. In: Diagnostic Cytopathology, 2nd edn. Gray W, McKee G (eds). London: Churchill Livingstone; 2003; pp. 769-89.
22. Cervical cancer - cervical screening (review) No 69. National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on liquid based cytology. Oct 2003. (http://www.nice.org.uk/Docref.asp?d=89851).