Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: Screening and diagnostic in Papanicolaou smears

Cancer

Volumn 102, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 280-287

  Ruba, Sukeerat ^a   Schoolland, Meike ^a   Allpress, Stephen ^a   Sterrett, Gregory ^a  

^a Western Diagnostic Pathology ^*  (Australia)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma in situ; Cervix; Diagnostic errors; Papanicolaou smears; Screening errors

Indexed keywords

CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SCREENING; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; HUMAN; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; TISSUE PRESERVATION; UTERINE NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 5644302357     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20600     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR, Key CR. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States - a 24-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:97-105.
2. Smith HO, Padilla LA. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: sensitivity of detection by cervical smear: will cytologic screening for adenocarcinoma in situ reduce incidence rates for adenocarcinoma? Cancer. 2002;96:319-322.
3. Zheng T, Holford TR, Ma Z, et al. The continuing increase in adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: a birth cohort phenomenon. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25:252-258.
4. Sasieni P, Adams J. Changing rates of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma in England. Lancet. 2001;357:1490-1493.
5. Herbert A, Singh N, Smith JA. Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix compared with squamous cell carcinoma: a 12-year study in Southampton and South-west Hampshire. Cytopathology. 2001;12:26-36.
6. Schoolland M, Segal A, Allpress S, Miranda A, Frost FA, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Sensitivity of detection in cervical smears. Cancer. 2002;96:330-337.
7. Schorge JO, Hossein Saboorian M, Hynan L, Ashfaq R. Thin-Prep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2002;96:338-343.
8. Lee KR, Genest DR, Minter LJ, Granter SR, Cibas ES. Adenocarcinoma in situ in cervical smears with a small cell (endometrioid) pattern: distinction from cells directly sampled from the upper endocervical canal or lower segment of the endometrium. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998;109:738-742.
9. Lee KR. Adenocarcinoma in situ with a small cell (endometrioid) pattern in cervical smears: a test of the distinction from benign mimics using specific criteria. Cancer. 1999;87:254-258.
10. Mitchell H, Hocking J, Saville M. Improvements in protection against adenocarcinoma of the cervix resulting from participation in cervical screening. Cancer. 2003;99:226-241.
11. Jaworski R, Pacey N, Greenberg M, Osborn R. The histologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ and related lesions of the cervix uteri. Cancer. 1988;61:1171-1181.
12. Lee K, Flynn C. Early invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Cancer. 2000;89:1048-1055.
13. Ayer B, Pacey F, Greenberg M, Bousfield L. The cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix uteri and related lesions. I. Adenocarcinoma in situ. Acta Cytol. 1987;31:397-410.
14. Ayer B, Pacey F, Greenberg M. The cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix uteri and related lesions. II. Microinvasive adenocarcinoma. Acta Cytol. 1988;32:318-324.
15. Ayer BS, Pacey NF, Greenberg ML. The cytological features of invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix uteri. Cytopathology. 1991;2:181-191.
16. Costa MJ, Kenny MB, Naib ZM. Cervicovaginal cytology in uterine adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma. Comparison of cytologic and histologic findings. Acta Cytol. 1991;35:127-134.
17. DeMay R. The art and science of cytopathology. Chicago: American Society for Clinical Pathology Press, 1996.
18. DiTomasso JP, Ramzy I, Mody DR. Glandular lesions of the cervix. Validity of cytologic criteria used to differentiate reactive changes, glandular intraepithelial lesions and adenocarcinoma. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:1127-1135.
19. Hayes MM, Matisic JP, Chen CJ, et al. Cytological aspects of uterine cervical adenocarcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma and combined adenocarcinoma-squamous carcinoma: appraisal of diagnostic criteria for in situ versus invasive lesions. Cytopathology. 1997;8:397-408.
20. Keyhani-Rofagha S, Brewer J, Prokorym P. Comparative cytologic findings of in situ and invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;12:120-125.
21. Koss LG. Diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases (4th edition). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1992.
22. Lee KR, Manna EA, Jones MA. Comparative cytologic features of adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol. 1991;35:117-126.
23. Mulvany N, Ostor A. Microinvasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a cytohistopathologic study of 40 cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16:430-436.
24. Nguyen GK, Daya D. Cervical adenocarcinoma and related lesions. Cytodiagnostic criteria and pitfalls. Pathol Annu. 1993;28:53-75.
25. Pacey NF, Ng AB. Glandular neoplasms of the uterine cervix. In: Bibbo M, editor. Comprehensive cytopathology (2nd edition). Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1997:231-250.
26. Saigo PE, Wolinska WH, Kim WS, Hajdu SI. The role of cytology in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with cervical adenocarcinoma. Acta Cytol. 1985;29:785-794.
27. Lee KR. False-positive diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Acta Cytol. 1988;32:276-277.
28. Pacey F, Ayer B, Greenberg M. The cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix uteri and related lesions. III. Pitfalls in diagnosis. Acta Cytol. 1988;32:325-330.
29. Novotny DB, Maygarden SJ, Johnson DE, Frable WJ. Tubal metaplasia. A frequent potential pitfall in the cytologic diagnosis of endocervical glandular dysplasia on cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1992;36:1-10.
30. Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells in cervical smears from women who have undergone cone biopsy. A potential diagnostic pitfall. Acta Cytol. 1993;37:705-709.
31. Fiorella RM, Casafrancisco D, Yokota S, Kragel PJ. Artifactual endocervical atypia induced by endocervical brush collection. Diagn Cytopathol. 1994;11:79-83.
32. Hirschowitz L, Eckford SD, Phillpotts B, Midwinter A. Cytological changes associated with tubo-endometrioid metaplasia of the uterine cervix. Cytopathology. 1994;5:1-8.
33. Valente PT, Schantz HD, Schultz M. Cytologic atypia associated with microglandular hyperplasia. Diagn Cytopathol. 1994;10:326-331.
34. de Peralta-Venturino MN, Purslow MJ, Kini SR. Endometrial cells of the "lower uterine segment" (LUS) in cervical smears obtained by endocervical brushings: a source of potential diagnostic pitfall. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;12:263-268.
35. Wilbur DC. Endocervical glandular atypia: a "new" problem for the cytologist. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;13:463-469.
36. Johnson TL, Kini SR. Endometrial metaplasia as a source of atypical glandular cells in cervicovaginal smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;14:25-31.
37. Schoolland M, Allpress S, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Cancer. 2002;96:5-13.
38. DeMay RM. Hyperchromatic crowded groups: pitfalls in Pap smear diagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000;114(Suppl):S36-S43.