Significance of MiB-1 staining in smears with atypical glandular cells

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 77-82

  Boon, Mathilde E ^a   Vinkestein, Astrid ^b   Van Binsbergen Ingelse, Annette ^a   Van Haaften, Caroline ^a  

^a LEIDEN CYTOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY LABORATORY   (Netherlands)

^b REINIER DE GRAAF HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma; AGUS; Cell proliferation; Cervical smear; MiB 1

Indexed keywords

KI 67 ANTIGEN;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CELL STRUCTURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRECANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ENDOMETRIAL HYPERPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; KI-67 ANTIGEN; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STAINING AND LABELING; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 3342920661     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20043     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Wright TC, Kurman RJ, Ferenczy A. Precancerous lesions of the cervix. In: Kurman RJ, editor. Blaustein's pathology of the female genital tract, 5th ed. Heidelberg: Springer; 2002. p 261-265.
2. Schindler S, Pooley RJ Jr, De Frias DV, Yu GH, Bedrossian CW. Follow-up of atypical glandular cells in cervical-endocervical smears. Ann Diagn Pathol 1998;2:312-317.
3. Bedrossian CWM. Early detection of cervical neoplasia: narrowing the cytohistologic divide. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002;22:1-3 (Editorial).
4. Ioffe OB, Sagae S, Moritani S, Dahmoush L, Chen TT, Silverberg SG. Symposium part 3: should pathologists diagnose endocervical preneoplastic lesions "less than" adenocarcinoma in situ?: Point. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002;22:18-21.
5. Kok MR. Neural network-based screening in cervical cytology: do we need the light microscope? PhD Thesis. Utrecht: The Netherlands, 2000.
6. The Bethesda System. Acta Cytol 2001;45:1077-1078.
7. Berek JS. Simplification of the new Bethesda 2001 classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:S2-5.
8. Nguyen HN, Nordqvist SR. The Bethesda system and evaluation of abnormal Pap smears. Semin Surg Oncol 1999;16:217-221.
9. Kainz C, Tempfer C, Bancher D, Sliutz G, Breitenecker G, Reinthaller A. The Bethesda system - an improvement in classification of cervbix cytology? Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1995;55:435-440.
10. Kurman RJ, Malkasian GD Jr, Sedlis A, Solomon D. From Papanicolaou to Bethesda: the rationale for a new cervical cytologic classification. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:779-782.
11. Raab SS, Bishop NS, Zaleski MS. Effect of cervical disease history on outcomes of women who have a Pap diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Gynecol Oncol 1999;74:460-464.
12. Burja IT, Thompson SK, Sawyer WL, Shurbaji. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1999;43:351-356.
13. Chhieng DC, Elgert PA, Xiong Y, Cangiarella JF, Cohen J-M. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. A follow-up study from an Academic Medical Center. Acta Cytol 2000;44:557-566.
14. Cenci M, Mancini R, Nofroni I, Vecchione A. Endocervical atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. 1. Morphometric and cytologic characterization of cases that "cannot rule out adenocarcinoma in situ." Acta Cytol 2000;44:319-326.
15. Raab SS. Can glandular lesions be diagnosed in Pap smear cytology? Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:127-133.
16. Geier CS, Wilson M, Creasman W. Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:64-69.
17. Regensburg MEJ, Boon ME. MIB-1 (KI-67) for atypical glandular cells of unknown significance in cervical smears: a useful tool for proper recognition of glandular lesions. Proc 28th European Congress of Cytology, Antwerp, Belgium, 2002. Cytopathology 2002; p 112 (Abstr).
18. Boon ME, Kleinschmidt-Guy ED, Wijsman-Grootendorst A, Hoogeveen MM. Upgrading unsatisfactory cervical smears with the MiB-1 method. Diagn Cytopathol 1996;15:270-276.
19. Nasuti JF, Fleisher SR, Gupta PK. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): clinical considerations and cytohistologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:186-190.
20. Ferraz MDA, Focchi J, Stavale JN, Nicolau SM, de Lima GR, Baracat EC. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Cytologic predictive value for glandular involvement in high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Acta Cytol 2003;147:154-158.
21. Kim HS, Underwood D. Adenocarcinomas in the cervicovaginal Papanicolaou smear: analysis of a 12 year experience. Diagn Cytopathol 1991;7:119-124.
22. Krane JF, Granter SR, Trask CE, Hogan CL, Lee KR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of Adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases. Cancer 2001;93:8-15.
23. Kutsuzawa T, Yamada Y, Ishizaki Y, et al. Reevaluation for over-looked signs of cervical smears in cases of uterine cervical Adenocarcinoma. Nippon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi 1984;36:2598-2604 (in Japanese).
24. Lee KR, Minter LJ, Granter SR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. A study of 34 cases. Am J Clin Pathol 1997;107:30-35.
25. Lee KR, Darragh TM, Joste NE, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): Interobserver reproducibility in cervical smears and corresponding thin layer preparations. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:96-102.