Reclassification and analysis of clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on ThinPrep using the Bethesda 2001: Geneva experience

Swiss Medical Weekly

Volumn 137, Issue 45-46, 2007, Pages 635-641

  Kumar, Neeta ^a   Bongiovanni, Massimo ^a   Molliet, Marie José ^a   Pelte, Marie Françoise ^a   Egger, Jean François ^a   Pache, Jean Claude ^a  

^a GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Atypical glandular cells; The Bethesda System 2001; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CELLS AND CELL COMPONENTS; CYTOLOGY; ENDOMETRIUM CARCINOMA; ENDOMETRIUM CELL; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GLANDULAR CELL; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; METRORRHAGIA; OVARY ADENOCARCINOMA; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; POSTMENOPAUSE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SWITZERLAND; UTERINE CERVIX;

EID: 36549034776     PISSN: 14247860     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Vizcainol P, Moreno V, Bosch FX, Munozi N, Barros-Dios XM, Parkin DM. International trends in the incidence of cervical cancer: I. Adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous cell carcinomas. Int J Cancer. 1998;75:536-45.
2. Babkowski RC, Wilbur DC, Rutkowski MA, Facik MS, Bonfiglio TA. The effects of endocervical canal topography, tubal metaplasia, and high canal sampling on the cytologic presentation of nonneoplastic endocervical cells. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996;105:403-10.
3. Koss LG. The new Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnosis. JAMA. 1989;262:931-4.
4. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: definitions, criteria and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994:64-72.
5. Covell JI, Wilbur DC, Guidos B, Lee KR, Chhieng DC, Mody DR. Epithelial Abnormalities: Glandular. In: The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: definitions, criteria and explanatory notes. Solomon D, Nayar R. (eds.) Second edition, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., 2004: pp 123-56.
6. Ozkan F; Ramzy I, Mody DR. Gynecologic Cytopathology - Glandular lesions of the cervix on thin-layer Pap tests: validity of cytologic criteria used in identifying significant lesions. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(3):372-9.
7. Johnson JE, Rahemtulla A: Endocervical glandular neoplasia and its mimics in ThinPrep Pap tests. A descriptive study. Acta Cytol. 1999;43(3):369-75.
8. 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(11):1224-9.
9. 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(3):603-7.
10. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2120-9.
11. Sharpless KE, Schnatz PF, Mandavilli S, Greene JF, Sorosky JI. Lack of adherence to practice guidelines for women with atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(3):501-6.
12. Eltabbakh GH, Lipman JN, Mount SL, Morgan A. Significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on ThinPrep Papanicolaou smears. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78(2):245-50.
13. Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F: ThinPrep Pap Test accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:81-5.
14. Chhieng DC, Cangiarella JF. Atypical glandular cells. Clin Lab Med. 2003;23(3):633-57.
15. Hecht JL, Sheets EE, Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin-layer preparations. Cancer Cytopathology. 2002;96(1):1-4.
16. Parellada CI, Schivartche PL, Pereyra EA, Chuery AC, Mioni SM, Carvalho FM. Atypical glandular cells on cervical smears. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;78(3):227-34.
17. 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(5):903-10.
18. Sharpless KE, Schnatz PF, Mandavilli S, Greene JF, Sorosky JI. Dysplasia associated with atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(3):494-500.
19. Salomao DR, Hughes JH, Raab SS. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance favor endometrial origin. Criteria for separating low grade endometrial adenocarcinoma from benign endometrial lesions. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(3):458-64.
20. Demay RM The pap Test. Chicago: American Society for Clinical Pathology Press, 2005.
21. Saad RS, Takei H, Liu YL, Silverman JE, Lipscomb JT, Ruiz B. Clinical significance of a cytologic diagnosis of atypical glandular cells, favor endometrial origin, in Pap smears. Acta Cytol. 2006;50(1):48-54.
22. Simsir A, Hwang S, Cangiarella J, Elgert P, Levine P, Sheffield MV, et al. Glandular cell atypia on Papanicolaou smears: interobserver variability in the diagnosis and prediction of cell of origin. Cancer. 2003;99(6):323-30.
23. Nasuti JF, Fleisher SR, Gupta P. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): clinical considerations and cytohistologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26(3):186-90.
24. Selvaggi SM. Cytologic features of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions involving endocervical glands on thin-layer cytology. Acta Cytol. 2005;49(6):689-90.
25. Mattosinho de Castro Ferraz Mda G, Focchi J, Stavale JN, Nicolau SM, Rodrigues de Lima G, Baracat EC Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Cytologic predictive value for glandular involvement in high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(2):154-8.
26. Chhieng DC, Gallaspy S, Yang H, Roberson J, Eltoum I. Women with atypical glandular cells: a long-term follow-up study in a high-risk population. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122(4):575-9.