Influence of specimen adequacy on the diagnosis of ASCUS

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 155-158

  Martins Sebastião, Ana P ^a   De Noronha, Lúcia ^a,b,c   Pinheiro, Diogo Lago ^c   Collaço, Luiz Martins ^a,b   De Carvalho, Newton Sérgio ^b   Bleggi Torres, Luiz F ^a,b,c,d  

^a Assoc of Pathologists of Parana   (Brazil)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PARANÁ   (Brazil)

^c PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF PARANÁ   (Brazil)

^d Department of Pathology ^*  (Brazil)

Author keywords

ASCUS; Cervical cytology; Pap smear; Specimen adequacy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELL OF UNDETERMINED SIGNIFICANCE; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SQUAMOUS CELL; TISSUE SECTION; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX DISEASE;

CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPECIMEN HANDLING; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 4344607050     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20109     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. JAMA 1989;262:931-934.
2. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol 1996;11:390-396.
3. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT, et al. Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology. Correlation of cytopathologic diagnoses with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus types. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;102:182-187.
4. Juskevicius R, Zou KH, Cibas ES. An analysis of factors that influence the ASCUS/SIL ratio of pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;16:331-335.
5. Smith AE, Sherman ME, Scott DR, et al. Review of the Bethesda System atlas does not improve reproducibility or accuracy in the classification of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance smears. Cancer 2000;90:201-206.
6. Apgar BS, Zoschnick L, Wright TC. The Bethesda System terminology. Am Fam Physician 68:1992-1998, 2003.
7. Kivlahan C, Ingram E. Papanicolaou smears without endocervical cells. Are they inadequate? Acta Cytol 1986;30:258-260.
8. Mitchell H, Medley G. Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet 1991;337: 265-267.
9. O' Sullivan JP, A' Hern RP, Chapman PA, et al. False-negative versus true-positive cervical smears. Cytopathology 1998:9:151-161.
10. Henry JA, Wadehra V. Influence of smear quality on the rate of detecting significant cervical cytologic abnormalities. Acta Cytol 1996;40:529-535.
11. Woodman CJB, Williams D, Yates M, Tomlinson K, Ward K, Luesley D. Indicators of effective cytological sampling of the uterine cervix. Lancet 1989;2:88-90.
12. Carvalho NS, Piazza MJ, Collaço LM. Citologia oncótica. Qual a metodologia ideal de coleta. Femina 2002;30:9-12.
13. Bleggi-Torres LF, Werner B, Totsugui J, et al. Cervical cancer screening of Paraná: cost-effective model in a developing country. Diagn Cytopathol 2003:29:49-54.
14. Luff RD. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop. Am J Clin Pathol 1992;98:152-154.
15. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287:2140-2141.
16. Vooijs GP, Nauwelaers FA, Van Aspert ERP, Plus AJ. A workstation for screening, supervision, reviewing, quality assurance and education in cytopathology. Acta Cytol 1996;40:90-96.
17. Berek JS. Simplification of the new Bethesda 2001 classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2003;188(Suppl 3):S2-S5 (discussion S6-S7).