Applicability of the Bethesda System 2001 to a public health setting

Cancer

Volumn 108, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 271-276

  Prandi, Sonia ^a   Beccati, Donatella ^b   De Aloysio, Graziella ^c   Fulgenzi, Patrizia ^d   Gabrielli, Marzio ^e   Ghirardini, Carla ^f   Rivasi, Francesco ^c   Saragoni, Luca ^g   De Bianchi, Priscilla Sassoli ^h   Bucchi, Lauro ^g  

^a Pathology Department   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF FERRARA   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA   (Italy)

^d INFERMI HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PARMA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Italy)

^f District Hospital   (Italy)

^g MORGAGNI PIERANTONI HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^h NONE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bethesda System; Cervix neoplasms; Mass screening; Papanicolaou smear

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BETHESDA SYSTEM 2001; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; ITALY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASS SCREENING; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; VAGINA CANCER;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; NEOPLASMS, SQUAMOUS CELL; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PILOT PROJECTS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PUBLIC HEALTH; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 33750089710     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22167     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Schneider V. The Bethesda System-the European perspective: report on the Second Conference on the Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. Cytopathology. 1992;3:27-29.
2. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002:287:2114-2119.
3. Basta N, Davey D, Banks H. Increase in unsatisfactory Pap tests with adoption of Bethesda 2001 criteria [Abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:929-930.
4. Bolik DR, Lin KK. Effectively implementing the Bethesda System 2001 guidelines on specimen adequacy [Abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:929.
5. Fidda N, Miron J, Rodgers WH, Rader A. Impact of the new Bethesda System 2001 on specimen adequacy of conventional cervicovaginal smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30:235-239.
6. Papillo JL, St. John TL. The effect of Bethesda 2001 on laboratory statistics [Abstract]. Acta Cytol 2002;46:923.
7. Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:1224-1229.
8. Quddus MR, Sung CJ, Eklund CM, Reilly ME, Steinhoff MM. ASC:SIL ratio following implementation of the 2001 Bethesda System. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30:240-242.
9. Chhieng DC, Roberson J, Gidley J, Eltoum I. Bethesda 2001: impact on the reporting of gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol. 2004;48:355-362.
10. Guidos BJ, Wojcik EM. Bethesda 2001: did it affect our practice [Abstract]? Acta Cytol. 2001;46:928-929.
11. Karateke A, Gurbuz A, Kabaca C, Zati A, Mengulluoglu M, Kir G. Atypical squamous cells: improvement in cytohistological correlation by the 2001 Bethesda System. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004;25:615-618.
12. Pirog EC, Erroll M, Harigopal M, Centeno BA. Comparison of human papillomavirus DNA prevalence in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance subcategories as defined by the original Bethesda 1991 and the new Bethesda 2001 Systems. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:527-532.
13. Duncan LD, Jacob SV. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: the practice experience of a hospital-based reference laboratory with this new Bethesda system diagnostic category. Diagn Cytopathol. 2005;32:243-246.
14. Bucchi L, Falcini F, Schincaglia P, et al. Performance indicators of organized cervical screening in Romagna (Italy). Eur J Cancer Prev. 2003;12:223-228.
15. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PM, et al. Nation-wide breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: results of initial and subsequent screening 1990-1995. Int J Cancer. 1998;75:694-698.
16. Blanks RG, Moss SM, Patnik J. Results from the UK NHS breast screening programme 1994-1999. J Med Screen. 2000;7:195-198.
17. Morris JA, Gardner MJ. Calculating confidence intervals for relative risks (odds ratios) and standardised ratios and rates. Br Med J. 1988;296:1313-1316.
18. Morini N, Bucchi L, Naldoni C, et al. Effects of the Bethesda System on the rate of unsatisfactory Pap smears in spontaneous cervical screening. Tumori. 1996;82:437-440.
19. Bucchi L, Serafini M. Spontaneous screening for cervical cancer and diagnostic histories of incident cases. Tumori. 1992;78:239-243.
20. Gambi A, Grilli N, Gentilini F, Monti C. Inadequate follow up for abnormal cervical smears [Letter]. J Med Screen. 1994;1:74.
21. Crothers BA. The Bethesda System 2001: update on terminology and application. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;48:98-107.
22. Gurbuz A, Karateke A, Kabaca C, Kir G. Atypical glandular cells: improvement in cytohistologic correlation by the 2001 Bethesda system. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005;15:903-910.
23. Tam KF, Cheung AN, Liu KL, et al. A retrospective review on atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS) using the Bethesda 2001 classification. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91:603-607.