BSCC terminology cervical cytology: Two or three tiers? Why not five, seven or even 14?

Cytopathology

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 245-251

  Herbert, A ^a  

^a ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER INVASION; CELL TYPE; CYTOLOGY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DYSKARYOSIS; DYSPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX EPITHELIUM; UTERINE CERVIX GLANDULAR NEOPLASIA; WART VIRUS;

CARCINOMA; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TERMINOLOGY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 6344235452     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2004.00193.x     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Anderson CE, Lee AJ, McLaren KM et al. Level of agreement and biopsy correlation using two and three-tier systems to grade cervical dyskaryosis. Cytopathology 2004;15:256-262.
2. Rana DN, Persad RV, Desai M et al. 5 year outcome of women with borderline and mildly dyskaryotic cervical smears. Cytopathology 2004;15:263-270.
3. Evans DM, Hudson EA, Brown CL, et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J Clin Pathol 1986;39:933-44.
4. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes, 2nd edn. New York: Springer; 2003.
5. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology, 2nd edn. Johnson J, Patnick J. eds. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2000 (NHSCSP Publication No. 1).
6. National Coordinating Network (National Cervical Screening Programme), British Society for Clinical Cytology and Royal College of Pathologists' Working Party. Buckley CH, Herbert A, Johnson J et al. eds. Borderline nuclear changes in cervical smears: Guidelines for their recognition and management. J Clin Path 2004;47: 481-92.
7. Schenck U, Herbert A, Solomon D et al. Terminology: International Academy of Cytology Task Force Summary. Acta Cytol 1998;42:1-10.
8. Elit L, McLachlin M, Kirk ME, Cary M, Robins R. Management of colposcopy patients with biopsy-proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 1999;3:191-5.
9. Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet 2003;362: 1871-76.
10. Mitchell MF, Tortolero-Luna G, Wright T et al. Cervical human papillomavirus infection and intraepithelial neoplasia: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1996;21: 17-25.
11. Massad S, Collins YC, Cejtin HE. Histologic findings after a colposcopic biopsy showing CIN2. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 2002;6:23-6.
12. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004;364:249-56.
13. Department of Health. National Statistics, Statistical Bulletin: Cervical Screening Programme, England: 2002-03. Government Statistical Service October 2003.
14. Herrington CS. Human papillomaviruses (HPV) in gynaecological cytology from molecular biology to clinical testing. Cytopathology 1995;6:176-89.
15. Dudding N, Sutton J, Lane S. Koilocytosis; an indication for conservative management. Cytopathology 1996;7: 32-7.
16. Mitchell H, Drake M, Medley G. Prospective evaluation of risk of cervical cancer after cytological evidence of human papillomavirus infection. Lancet 1986;i:573-5.
17. Borderline Nuclear Changes National Slide Exchange Study Group. Do borderline nuclear changes in gynaecological cytology constitute a reliable reporting category? Cytopathology 2002;13:220-31.
18. The ALTS-LSIL triage group. Results of a randomized trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1383-92.
19. Mathers ME, Johnson SJ, Wadehra V. How predictive is a smear suggesting glandular neoplasia? Cytopathology 2002;13:83-91.
20. Waddell C. Glandular neoplasms of the uterine cervix. In: Diagnostic Cytopathology, Chapter 32, 2nd edn. Gray W, McKee G (eds). London: Churchill Livingstone; 2002.
21. Wilson C, Jones H. An audit of cervical smears reported to contain atypical glandular cells. Cytopathology 2004;15: 181-7.
22. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the Use of Liquid-based Cytology for Cervical Cytology. Technology Appraisal 69. UK: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2003.