Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 Practices of participants in the college of American pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 128, Issue 11, 2004, Pages 1224-1229

  Davey, Diane D ^a,g   Neal, Margaret H ^b   Wilbur, David C ^c   Colgan, Terence J ^d   Styer, Patricia E ^e   Mody, Dina R ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b KWB Pathology Associates   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e Molecular Pathology Division   (United States)

^f BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PATHOLOGIST; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

CERVIX UTERI; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH PLAN IMPLEMENTATION; HUMANS; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; SPECIMEN HANDLING; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINA; VAGINAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 7444236348     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol. 1994;11:390-396.
2. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Naryshkin S, Robb JA, Cohen T, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:440-444.
3. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Rosenstock W, Kline TS. Terminology and specimen adequacy in cervicovaginal cytology: the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116: 903-907.
4. Davey DD, Woodhouse S, Styer P, Stastny J, Mody D. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy: current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:203-211.
5. College of American Pathologists. Cytopathology Laboratory Accreditation Checklist. Available at: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/laboratory_accreditation/ checklists/checklistftp.html. Accessed July 7, 2004.
6. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119.
7. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: basdine results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:293-299.
8. Wright TC, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA. 2002;287:2120-2129.
9. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press; 1989.
10. Loura AP, Roberson J, Eltoum I, Chhieng DC. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: a follow-up study of conventional and liquid-based preparations in a high-risk population. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:392-397.
11. Renshaw AA, Mody DR, Lozano LR, et al. Detection of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix in Papanicolaou tests: comparison of diagnostic accuracy with other high-grade lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:153-157.
12. Clavel C, Masure M, Bory J-P, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer. 2001;89:1616-1623.
13. Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;87:48-55.
14. Limaye A, Connor AJ, Huang X, Luff R. Comparative analysis of conventional Papanicolaou tests and a fluid-based thin-layer method. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:200-204.
15. Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:342-362.
16. Mody DR, Davey DD, Branca M, et al. Quality assurance and risk reduction guidelines. Acta Cytol. 2000;44:496-507.
17. Juskevicius R, Zou KH, Cibas ED. An analysis of factors that influence the ASCUS/SIL ratio of pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116:331-335.
18. Fidda N, Miron J, Rodgers WH, Rader A. Impact of the new Bethesda System 2001 on specimen adequacy of conventional cervicovaginal smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30:235-239.
19. Birdsong G. Judging specimen adequacy by Bethesda '01 criteria. CAP Today. January 2003:61.
20. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2004.
21. American Society of Cytopathology. Bethesda System Website Atlas. Available at: http://www.cytopathology.org/NIH/. Accessed July 7, 2004.
22. Davey DD, Austin RM, Birdsong G, et al. ASCCP patient management guidelines: Pap test specimen adequacy and quality indicators. J Lower Genital Tract Dis. 2002;6:195-199.
23. Lozano R. Successfully integrating human papillomavirus testing into your practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:991-994.