The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology

Comprehensive Cytopathology

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 77-90

  Nayar, Ritu ^a   Wilbur, David C ^b,c   Solomon, Diane ^d  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958152564     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-141604208-2.10006-5     Document Type: Chapter

References (81)

1. National Cancer Institute Workshop The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. JAMA 1989, 262:931-934.
2. National Cancer Institute Workshop The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Acta Cytol 1993, 37:115-124.
3. Kurman R.J., Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes for Terminology and Specimen Adequacy 1994, Springer-Verlag, New York.
4. Davey D., Woodhouse S., Styer P., et al. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy: current laboratory practices of the participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:203-211.
5. ASCUS LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group Results of a randomized trial on management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003, 188:1383-1392.
6. Schiffman M., Adrianza M.E. ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. Design, methods and characteristics of trial participants. Acta Cytol 2000, 44(5):726-742.
7. Solomon D., Davey D., Kurman R., et al. for the Forum Group Members and the Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The 2001 Bethesda System-terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002, 287:2114-2119.
8. Wright T.C., Cox J.T., Massad L.S., et al. ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002, 287:2120-2129.
9. ASCCP consensus guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007, 197(4):346-355.
10. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology 2004, Springer, New York. 2nd edn. D. Solomon, R. Nayar (Eds.).
11. Bethesda System Web Atlas. Available at the American Society of Cytopathology website:http://www.cytopathology.org.
12. Sherman M.E., DasGupta A., Schiffman M., et al. Bethesda Interobserver Reproducibility Study (BIRST). Cancer Cytopathol 2007, 111:15-25.
13. Bottles K., Reiter R.C., Steiner A.L., et al. Problems encountered with The Bethesda System: The University of Iowa experience. Obstet Gynecol 1991, 78:410-414.
14. Kline T.S., Solomon D. Guidelines for specimen adequacy: A plea for workable definitions. Diagn Cytopathol 1991, 7:1-2.
15. Solomon D., Henry M. Specimen adequacy. Compendium on Quality Assurance, Proficiency Testing and Workload Limitations in Clinical Cytology 1995, 90-94. Tutorials of Cytology, Chicago. G.L. Wied, C.M. Keebler, D.L. Rosenthal (Eds.).
16. Birdsong G. Pap smear adequacy: is our understanding satisfactory ... or limited?. Diagn Cytopathol 2001, 24:79-81.
17. Studeman K.D., Ioffe O.B., Puszkiewicz J., et al. Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of detecting squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 2003, 47(4):605-610.
18. Bolick D.R., Kerr J., Stanely B.E., et al. Effect of cellularity in the detection rates of high grade and low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Acta Cytol 2002, 46:922-923. (abstract).
19. Bos A.B., van Ballegooijen M., van den Akker-van Marle E., et al. Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol 2001, 115:851-855.
20. Elias A., Linthorst G., Bekker B., et al. The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of cervical epithelial changes. Acta Cytol 1983, 27:225-229.
21. Mauney M., Eide D., Sotham J. Rates of condyloma and dysplasia in Papanicolaou smears with and without endocervical cells. Diagn Cytopathol 1990, 6:18-21.
22. Mitchell H., Medley G. Influence of endocervical status on the cytologic prediction of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Acta Cytol 1992, 36:875-880.
23. Mitchell H., Medley G. Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet 1991, 337:265-268.
24. Mitchell H.S. Longitudinal analysis of histologic high grade disease after negative cervical cytology according to endocervical status. Cancer Cytopathol 2001, 93:237-240.
25. Smith H.O., Tiffany M.F., Qualls C.R., et al. The rising incidence adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States: a 24-year population based study. Gynecol Oncol 2000, 108:397.
26. Zheng T., Holford T.R., Ma Z., et al. The continuing increase in adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: a birth control phenomenon. Int J Epidemiol 1996, 25:252-258.
27. Ransdell J.S., Davey D.D., Zaleski S., et al. Clinicopathologic correlation of the unsatisfactory Pap smear. Cancer Cytopathol 1997, 81:139-143.
28. Davey D., Austin M., Birdsong G., et al. ASCCP patient management guidelines: Pap test adequacy and quality indicators. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2002, 6:195-199.
29. Nielsen M.L., Davey D.D., Kline T.S. Specimen adequacy evaluation in gynecologic cytopathology. Diagn Cytopathol 1993, 9:394-403.
30. Davey D.D., Woodhouse S., Styer P., et al. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124(2):203-211.
31. Davey D.D., Neal M.H., Wilbur D.C., et al. Bethesda 2001 Implementation and reporting rates: 2003-practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004:, 28(11):1224-1229.
32. Fidda N., Miron J., Rodgers W.H., et al. Impact of the new Bethesda system 2001 on specimen adequacy of cervicovaginal smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2004, 30:235-239.
33. Quddus M.R., Sung C.J., Eklund C.M., et al. ASC:SIL ratio following implementation of 2001 Bethesda system. Diagn Cytopathol 2004, 30(4):240-242.
34. Prandi S., Beccati D., Aloysio G.D., et al. Applicability of the Bethesda system 2001 to a public health setting. Cancer Cytopathol 2006, 108(5):271-276.
35. Colgan T.J., Woodhouse S.L., Styer P.E., et al. Reparative changes and the false-positive/false-negative Papanicolaou test. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2001, 125(1):134-140.
36. Snyder T.M., Renshaw A.A., Styer P.E., et al. Altered recognition of reparative changes in ThinPrep specimens in the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005, 129(7):861-865. for the Cytopathology Resource Committee.
37. Ponder T.B., Easley K.O., Davila R.M. Glandular cells in vaginal smears from posthysterectomy patients. Acta Cytol 1997, 41:1701-1704.
38. Bwetra C. Columnar cells in posthysterectomy vaginal smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1992, 8(4):342-345.
39. Greenspan D.L., Cardillo M., Davey D.D., et al. Endometrial cells in cervical cytology: review of cytologic features and clinical assessment. J Low Gen Dis 2006, 10(2):111-122.
40. Browne T.J., Genest D.R., Cibas E.S. The clinical significance of benign-appearing endometrial cells on a Papanicolaou test in women 40 years or older. Am J Clin Pathol 2005, 124(6):834-837.
41. Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. 1993 PAP supplemental questionnaire on Laboratory Practice: ASCUS. College of American Pathologists, 1994.
42. Ho G.Y.F., Bierman R., Beardsle L., et al. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998, 338:423-428.
43. Raffle A.E., Alden B., Mackenzie E.F.D. Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: What are we screening for?. Lancet 1995, 345:1469-1473.
44. Sidawy M.K., Tabbara S.O. Reactive change and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in Papanicolaou smears: A cytohistologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 1993, 9:423-429.
45. Sherman M.E., Schiffman M.H., Lorincz A.T., et al. Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1994, 102:182-187.
46. Stoler M.H., Schiffman M. Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001, 285(11):1500-1505.
47. The ALTS Group Results of a randomized trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003, 188:1383-1392.
48. Stoler M.H. New Bethesda terminology and evidence based management guidelines for cervical cytology findings. JAMA 2002, 287(16):2140-2141.
49. Ko V., Nanji S., Tambouret R., et al. Testing for HPV as an objective measure for quality assurance in cervical cytology. Cancer Cytopath 2007, 111:67-73.
50. Jones B.A., Novis D.A. Follow-up of abnormal gynecologic cytology: a College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of 16132 cases from 306 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:665-671.
51. Sherman M.E., Solomon D., Schiffman M. Qualification of ASCUS: a comparison of equivocal LSIL and Equivocal HSIL cervical cytology in the ASCUS LSIL Triage Study. Am J Clin Pathol 2001, 116:386-394.
52. Sordon M., Dilworth H.P., Ronnett B.M. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Diagnostic performance, human papillomavirus testing, and follow-up results. Cancer Cyopathol 2006, 108:32-38.
53. Safaeian M., Solomon D., Wacholder S., et al. Risk of precancer and follow-up management strategies for women with human papillomavirus-negative atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 109:1325-1331.
54. Cox J.T., Solomon D., Schiffman M. Prospective follow up suggests similar risk of subsequent CIN 2 or 3 among women with CIN 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003, 188:1406-1412.
55. Nubia Muñoz N., Bosch F.X., Sanjosé S.D., et al. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2003, 348(6):518-527.
56. Lorincz A.T., Reid R., Jenson A.B., et al. Human papillomavirus infection of the cervix: Relative risk associations of 15 common anogenital types. Obstet Gynecol 1992, 79:328-337.
57. Wright T.C., Schiffman M. Adding a test for human papillomavirus DNA to cervical cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2003, 348(6):489-490.
58. Khan M.J., Castle P.E., Lorincz A.T., et al. The elevated 10-year risk of cervical precancer and cancer in women with human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 or 18 and the possible utility of type-specific HPV testing in clinical practice. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005, 97:1072-1079.
59. Sherry L., Woodhouse S.L., Stastny J.F., et al. Interobserver variability in subclassification of squamous intraepithelial lesions: Results of the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999, 123(11):1079-1084.
60. Renshaw A.A., Henry M.R., Birdsong G.G., et al. Cytologic features of squamous cell carcinoma in conventional smears: Comparison of cases that performed poorly with those that performed well in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004, 129(9):1097-1099.
61. Arbyn M., Sasieni P., Meijer C.J., et al. Clinical applications of HPV testing: A summary of meta-analyses. Vaccine 2006, 24(Suppl 3):S78-S89.
62. Guido R., Solomon D., Schiffman M., Burke L. Comparison of management strategies for women diagnosed as CIN 1 or less, postcolposcopic evaluation: Data from the ASCUS and LSIL Triage Study (ALTS), a Multicenter Randomized Trial. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2002, 6:176.
63. Jones B.A., Davey D.D. Quality management in gynecologic cytology using interlaboratory comparison. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000, 124:672-681.
64. Evans M.F., Adamson C.S., Papillo J.L., et al. Distribution of human papillomavirus types in ThinPrep Papanicolaou tests classified according to the Bethesda 2001 terminology and correlations with patient age and biopsy outcomes. Cancer 2006, 106(5):1054-1064.
65. Renshaw A.A., Mody D.R., Lozano L.R., 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, 128:53-157.
66. Eddy G.L., Strumpf K.B., Wojtowycz M.A., et al. Biopsy findings in five hundred thirty-one patients with atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance as defined by the Bethesda System. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997, 177:1188-1195.
67. Burja I.T., Thompson S.K., Sawyer W.L., et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical smears. A study with cytohistologic correlation. Acta Cytol 1999, 43:351-356.
68. Diaz-Montes T.P., Farinola M.A., Zahurak M.L., et al. Clinical utility of atypical glandular cells (AGC) classification: cytohistologic comparison and relationship to HPV results. Gynecol Oncol 2007, 14(2):366-371.
69. Selvaggi S.M. Cytologic features of squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving endocervical glands in endocervical cytobrush specimens. Acta Cytol 1994, 38:687-692.
70. Novotny D.B., Maygarden S.J., Johnson D.E., et al. Tubal metaplasia. A frequent potential pitfall in the cytologic diagnosis of endocervical glandular dysplasia. Acta Cytol 1992, 36:1-10.
71. Lee K. Atypical glandular cells in cervical smears from women who have undergone cone biopsy. Acta Cytol 1993, 37:705-709.
72. de Peralta-Venturino M.N., Purslow M.J., et al. Endometrial cells of the "lower uterine segment" (LUS) in cervical smears obtained by endocervical brushings: A source of potential diagnostic pitfall. Diagn Cytopathol 1995, 12:263-271.
73. Renshaw A.A., Schwartz M.R., Wang E., et al. Cytologic features of adenocarcinoma, not otherwise specified, in conventional smears: comparison of cases that performed poorly with those that performed well in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006, 130(1):23-26.
74. Austin R.M., Ramzy I. Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic cytology preparations. A review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol 1998, 42(1):178-184.
75. Ashfaq R., Gibbons D., Vela C., et al. ThinPrep Pap test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol 1999, 43(1):81-85.
76. DeSimone C.P., Day M.E., Tovar M.M., et al. Rate of pathology from glandular cells classified by the Bethesda system 2001 nomenclature. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 107:1285-1291.
77. Chhieng D.C., Gallaspy S., Yang H., et al. Women with atypical glandular cells: a long term follow-up study in a high risk population. Am J Clin Pathol 2004, 122:575-579.
78. Arian S., Walts A.E., Thomas P., et al. The anal Pap smear: cytomorphology of squamous intraepithelial lesions. Cytojournal 2006, 2-4.
79. Nayar R., Contreras N., Luzadeer R., et al. Screening for anal cancer: cytologic findings and follow-up. Cancer Cytopathol 2006, 108:423. (abstract).
80. Saslow D., Runowicz C.D., Solomon D., et al. American Cancer Guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002, 52:342.
81. Solomon D., Breen N., McNeel T. Cervical cancer screening rates in the United States and the potential impact of implementation of screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin 2007, 57:105-111.