Limiting the use of atypical/inconclusive as a category in nongynecologic cytology specimens

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 134, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1016-1019

  Koen, Tracie M ^a   Mody, Dina R ^a   Scheiber Pacht, Miriam ^a   Fairley, Todd ^a   Thrall, Michael J ^a  

^a HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RECORD; NOMENCLATURE; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; STANDARD;

HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 77954346618     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Papanicolaou, G. Atlas of Exfoliative Cytology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Commonwealth Fund by Harvard Press; 1954.
2. Raab SS, Stone CH, Wojcik EM, et al. Use of a new method in reaching consensus on the cause of cytologic histologic correlation discrepancy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126(6):836-842.
3. National Cancer Institute. The uniform approach to breast fine needle aspiration biopsy: a synopsis. Developed and approved at a National Cancer Institute-sponsored conference; September 9-10, 1996; Bethesda, MD. Acta Cytol. 1996;40(6):1120-1126.
4. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes for Terminology and Specimen Adequacy. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag Telos; 1994.
5. Baloch ZW, LiVolsi VA, Asa SL, et al. Diagnostic terminology and morphologic criteria for cytologic diagnosis of thyroid lesions: a synopsis of the National Cancer Institute Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration State of the Science Conference. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008;36(6):425-437.
6. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad L, Dunton CJ, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(4):346-355. (Pubitemid 47464164)
7. Pitman MB, Cibas ES, Powers CN, Renshaw AA, Frable WJ. Reducing or eliminating use of the category of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance decreases the diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou smear. Cancer Cytopathol. 2002;96(3):128-134.
8. Sharma S, Zippe CD, Pandrangi L, Nelson D, Agarwal A. Exclusion criteria enhance the specificity and positive predictive value of NMP22 and BTA stat. J Urol. 1999;162(1):53-57.
9. Kanhoush R, Jorda M, Gomez-Fernandez C, et al. "Atypical" and "suspicious" diagnoses in breast aspiration cytology: is there a need for two categories? Cancer Cytopathol. 2004;102(3):164-167.
10. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnoses. Cancer. 2005;104(10):2205- 2213.
11. Clary KM, Silverman JF, Liu Y, et al. Cytohistologic discrepancies: a means to improve pathology practice and patient outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117(4):567-573.
12. Kapur U, Venkataraman G, Wojcik EM. Diagnostic significance of "atypia" in instrumented versus voided urine specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 2008;114(4):270-274.