Glandular prediction: The pride and the prejudice

Cytopathology

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 177-180

  Waddell, C ^a  

^a BIRMINGHAM CHILDREN S HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma; Adenocarcinoma in situ; Borderline changes; Cervical glandular intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervical screening; Glandular reporting

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CYTODIAGNOSIS; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCREENING; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; PREJUDICE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 4444360216     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2004.00177.x     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of the cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. Brit Med J 1999;318:904-8.
2. Lanucki L. (ed.) Statistical Bulletin 2002-03. London: Department of Health Government, Statistical Service, 2003.
3. Sasieni P, Adams J. Changing rates of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix in England. Lancet 2001;357:1490-3.
4. Wilson C, Jones H. An audit of cervical smears reported to contain atypical glandular cells. Cytopathology 2004;15:181-187.
5. Kirwan JM, Herrington CS, Smith PA, Tumbull LS, Herod JJO. A retrospective clinical audit of cervical smears reported as '?glandular neoplasia'. Cytopathology 2004;15:188-194.
6. Johnson J, Patnick J. (eds). Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting, Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Pathology, 2nd edn. Sheffield: NHSCSP, 2000: pp. 9-10. Publication no. 1.
7. Waddell C. Glandular neoplasms of the uterine cervix. Chapter32. In: Diagnostic Cytopathology, 2nd edn. Gray W, McKee G (eds). London: Churchill Livingstone, 2002: pp. 769-789.
8. Bose S, Kannan V, Kline TS. Abnormal endocervical cells: really abnormal? Really endocervical? Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:708-13.
9. Mohammed DKA, Lavie O, de Lopes AB, Cross P, Monaghan JM. A clinical review of borderline glandular cells on cervical cytology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000;107:605-9.
10. Luesley D, Leeson S. (eds). Colposcopy and Programme Management; guidelines for the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Sheffield: NHSCSP, 2004: p. 51. Publication no. 20.
11. http://www.clinicalcytology.co.uk
12. Mody D. Agonizing over AGUS. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1999;87:243-4.
13. Evans D, Hudson E, Brown C et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the working party of the BSCC. J Clin Pathol 1986;39:933-44.
14. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal diagnoses. J Am Med Assoc 1989;262:931-4.
15. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, Laverty CR. Subdividing atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance according to the Australian modified Bethesda system: analysis of outcomes. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2000;90:87-95.
16. Solomon D, Frable W, Vooijs P et al. ASCUS and AGUS criteria. IAC Task force summary. Acta Cytol 1998;42:16-24.
17. Herbert A, Johnson J, Patnick J et al. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting, Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology, 1st edn. Sheffield: NHSCSP, 1995: pp. 13-14. Publication no. 1.
18. McLuggage WG. Endocervical glandular lesions: controversial aspects and ancillary techniques. J Clin Pathol 2003;56:164-73.
19. Robb JA. The 'ASCUS' swamp. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:319-20.
20. Soost H-J, Lange H-J, Lehmacher W, Ruffing-Kullmann B. The validation of cervical cytology. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Cytol 1991;35:8-14.
21. Mitchell H, Medley G, Drake M. Quality control measures for cervical cytology laboratories. Acta Cytol 1988;32:288-92.
22. Mathers ME, Johnson SJ, Wadehra V. How predictive is a smear suggesting glandular neoplasia? Cytopathology 2002;13:83-91.
23. 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;107:30-5.
24. Tritz DM, Weeks JA, Spires SE et al. Etiologies for non-correlating cervical cytologies and biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:594-7.
25. Sidawy MK, Siriaunkgul S, Frost AR. Retrospective analysis of non-correlating cervical smears and colposcopically directed biopsies. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:343-7.
26. Cullimore JE, Luesley DM, Rollason TP et al. A prospective study of conization of the cervix in the management of cervical intraepithelial glandular neoplasia (CIGN): a preliminary report. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:314-8.
27. Friedell GH, McKay DG. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the endocervix. Cancer 1953;6:887-97.
28. Mount S, Harmon M, Eltabbakh G et al. False positive diagnosis in conventional and liquid-based cervical specimens. Acta Cytol 2004;48:363-71.