Significance of Subclassifying High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions into Moderate Dysplasia/CIN II Versus Severe Dysplasia/CIN III/CIS in the Bethesda System Terminology

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 362-366

  Howell, Lydia P ^a   Zhou, Heidi ^a   Wu, Wendy ^a   Davis, Robin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bethesda System; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; High grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; Moderate dysplasia; Pap test

Indexed keywords

BETHESDA SYSTEM; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; NOMENCLATURE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SQUAMOUS EPITHELIUM; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS, SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 2342571117     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20018     Document Type: Review

References (9)

1. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vagtinal cytological diagnoses. JAMA 1989;262:931-934.
2. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, Raab S, Sherman M, Wilbur D, Wright T, Young N, for the Forum Group Members and Bethesda 2001 Workgroup. The 2001 Bethesda system: terminology for reporting result of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-2119.
3. Wright TC, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ, 2001 ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-2129.
4. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probe study of 22439 correlations in 48 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120:523-531.
5. Woodhouse SL, Stastny JF, Styer PE, Kennedy M, Praestgaard AH, Davey DD. Interobserver variability in subclassification of squamous intraepithelial lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999;123:1079-1084.
6. Klinkhamer PJJM, Vooijs GP, de Haan AFJ. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1988;32:794-800.
7. Robertson AJ, Anderson, JM, Swanson Beck J, Burnett RA, Howatson SR, Lee FD, Lessells AM, McLaren KM, Moss SM, Simpson JG, Smith GD, Tavadia HP, Walker F. Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol 1989;42:231-238.
8. Zuna RE, Sienko A, Lightfoot S, Gaiser M. Cervical smear interpretations in women with a histologic diagnosis of severe dysplasia. Cancer Cancer Cytopathol 2002;96:218-224.
9. Jarmulowicz MR, Jenkins D, Barton SE, Goodall AL, Hollingworth A, Singer A. Cytological status and lesion size: a further dimension in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:1061-1066.