Gynecologic cytology on conventional and liquid-based preparations: A comprehensive review of similarities and differences

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 257-278

  Hoda, Rana S ^a   Loukeris, Kristina ^a   Abdul Karim, Fadi W ^b  

^a NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

liquid based preparations; pap test; SurePath; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

CYCLIN DEPENDENT KINASE INHIBITOR 2A; PROTEIN P63;

ACTINOMYCES; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELL; CANDIDA; CELL DAMAGE; CELL STRUCTURE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONVENTIONAL PAPANICOLAOU SMEAR; CYTODIAGNOSIS; CYTOMEGALOVIRUS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ENDOMETRIUM CARCINOMA; ENDOMETRIUM CYTOLOGY; ENDOMETRIUM HYPERPLASIA; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT INFECTION; HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS; HUMAN; IMMUNOCYTOCHEMISTRY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE; LIQUID BASED PREPARATION; METAPLASIA; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; POLYP; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SAMPLER; SAMPLING; SCREENING TEST; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; TRICHOMONAS VAGINALIS; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VAGINA ATROPHY; VAGINA EPITHELIUM; VAGINA FLORA; WART VIRUS;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; SPECIMEN HANDLING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84874107922     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.22842     Document Type: Review

References (122)

1. Wilbur DC, Henry MR, College of American Pathologists. College of American Pathologists practical guide to gynecologic cytopathology: Morphology, management, and molecular methods. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists; 2008. xv, 255 p.
2. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, et al. Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: A randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 2009; 302: 1757-1764.
3. Cox JT,. Liquid-based cytology: Evaluation of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and application to present practice. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2004; 2: 597-611.
4. Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, Spencer L, Bolick D,. Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer 2004; 102: 269-279.
5. Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B,. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: A metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 308-317.
6. Hoda RS,. Non-gynecologic cytology on liquid-based preparations: a morphologic review of facts and artifacts. Diagn Cytopathol 2007; 35: 621-634.
7. Bentz JS,. Liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2005; 5: 857-871.
8. Rinas AC, Mittman BW, Jr, Le LV, Hartmann K, Cayless J, Singh HK,. Split-sample analysis of discarded cells from liquid-based Pap smear sampling devices. Acta Cytol 2006; 50: 55-62.
9. Solomon D, Nayar R,. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: Definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes. New York: Springer; 2004. xxiii,191 p.
10. Belsley NA, Tambouret RH, Misdraji J, Muzikansky A, Russell DK, Wilbur DC,. Cytologic features of endocervical glandular lesions: Comparison of SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional smear specimen preparations. Diagn Cytopathol 2008; 36: 232-237.
11. Michael CW, McConnel J, Pecott J, Afify AM, Al-Khafaji B,. Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: A pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol 2001; 25: 177-184.
12. Moriarty AT, Clayton AC, Zaleski S, et al. Unsatisfactory reporting rates: 2006 practices of participants in the college of american pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in gynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133: 1912-1916.
13. Pang Y, Smola B, Pu RT, Michael CW,. Restoring satisfactory status in ThinPrep Pap test specimens with too few squamous cells and containing microscopic red blood cells. Diagn Cytopathol 2008; 36: 696-700.
14. Treacy A, Reynolds J, Kay EW, Leader M, Grace A,. Has the ThinPrep method of cervical screening maintained its improvement over conventional smears in terms of specimen adequacy? Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 37: 239-240.
15. Alsharif M, McKeon DM, Gulbahce HE, Savik K, Pambuccian SE,. Unsatisfactory SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou tests: Causes and significance. Cancer Cytopathol 2009; 117: 15-26.
16. Sweeney BJ, Haq Z, Happel JF, Weinstein B, Schneider D,. Comparison of the effectiveness of two liquid-based Papanicolaou systems in the handling of adverse limiting factors, such as excessive blood. Cancer 2006; 108: 27-31.
17. Haack LA, O'Brien D, Selvaggi SM,. Protocol for the processing of bloody cervical specimens: Glacial acetic acid and the ThinPrep Pap Test. Diagn Cytopathol 2006; 34: 210-213.
18. Bentz JS, Rowe LR, Gopez EV, Marshall CJ,. The unsatisfactory ThinPrep Pap Test: Missed opportunity for disease detection? Am J Clin Pathol 2002; 117: 457-463.
19. Rowe LR, Bentz JS,. A simple method to determine the need for glacial acetic acid treatment of bloody ThinPrep Pap tests before slide processing. Diagn Cytopathol 2004; 31: 321-325.
20. Agoff SN, Dean T, Nixon BK, Ingalls-Severn K, Rinker L, Grieco VS,. The efficacy of reprocessing unsatisfactory cervicovaginal ThinPrep specimens with and without glacial acetic acid: Effect on Hybrid Capture II human papillomavirus testing and clinical follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol 2002; 118: 727-732.
21. Feng J, Husain M,. Reflex high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing (Hybrid Capture 2) of bloody ThinPrep specimens with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance interpretation: Does pretreatment with acetic acid affect test performance? Cancer 2005; 105: 452-456.
22. Holton T, Smith D, Terry M, Madgwick A, Levine T,. The effect of lubricant contamination on ThinPrep (Cytyc) cervical cytology liquid-based preparations. Cytopathology 2008; 19: 236-243.
23. Narine N, Young W,. Transformation zone sampling rate is a useful performance indicator for practitioners collecting cervical samples using SurePath liquid-based cytology system. Cytopathology 2007; 18: 220-224.
24. Tibbs RF, Wong JY, Logrono R,. Enhancing recovery of endocervical component on gynecologic cytology specimens processed by thin-layer technology. Acta Cytol 2003; 47: 172-176.
25. Kalir T, Simsir A, Demopoulos HB, Demopoulos RI,. Obstacles to the early detection of endocervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2005; 24: 399-403.
26. Snyder TM, Renshaw AA, Styer PE, Mody DR, Colgan TJ,. Altered recognition of reparative changes in ThinPrep specimens in the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005; 129: 861-865.
27. Selvaggi SM,. Atrophic vaginitis versus invasive squamous cell carcinoma on ThinPrep cytology: Can the background be reliably distinguished? Diagn Cytopathol 2002; 27: 362-364.
28. Takei H, Ruiz B, Hicks J,. Cervicovaginal flora. Comparison of conventional pap smears and a liquid-based thin-layer preparation. Am J Clin Pathol 2006; 125: 855-859.
29. Cibas ES, Ducatman BS,. Cytology: Diagnostic principles and clinical correlates. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders/Elsevier; 2009. xiii, 537 p.
30. Fitzhugh VA, Heller DS,. Significance of a diagnosis of microorganisms on pap smear. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2008; 12: 40-51.
31. Aslan DL, McKeon DM, Stelow EB, Gulbahce HE, Kjeldahl K, Pambuccian SE,. The diagnosis of trichomonas vaginalis in liquid-based Pap tests: Morphological characteristics. Diagn Cytopathol 2005; 32: 253-259.
32. Laudadio J, Hoda RS,. Unique appearance of Actinomyces on Thinprep Pap test. Diagn Cytopathol 2006; 34: 553-554.
33. Fiel-Gan MD, Villamil CF, Mandavilli SR, Ludwig ME, Tsongalis GJ,. Rapid detection of HSV from cytologic specimens collected into ThinPrep fixative. Acta Cytol 1999; 43: 1034-1038.
34. Negri G, Menia E, Egarter-Vigl E, Vittadello F, Mian C,. ThinPrep versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in the cytologic follow-up of women with equivocal cervical smears. Cancer 2003; 99: 342-345.
35. Nayar R, Tabbara SO,. Atypical squamous cells: Update on current concepts. Clin Lab Med 2003; 23: 605-632.
36. Ng WK, Li AS, Cheung LK,. Significance of atypical repair in liquid-based gynecologic cytology: A follow-up study with molecular analysis for human papillomavirus. Cancer 2003; 99: 141-148.
37. Cibas ES, Browne TJ, Bassichis MH, Lee KR,. Enlarged squamous cell nuclei in cervical cytologic specimens from perimenopausal women ("PM Cells"): A cause of ASC overdiagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol 2005; 124: 58-61.
38. Morrison C, Prokorym P, Piquero C, Wakely PE, Jr, Nuovo GJ,. Oral contraceptive pills are associated with artifacts in ThinPrep Pap smears that mimic low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Cancer 2003; 99: 75-82.
39. Stoler MH, Schiffman M,. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: Realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. J Am Med Assoc 2001; 285: 1500-1505.
40. Austin RM, Ramzy I,. Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic cytology preparations. A review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 178-184.
41. Sass MA,. Use of a liquid-based, thin-layer Pap test in a community hospital. Impact on cytology performance and productivity. Acta Cytol 2004; 48: 17-22.
42. Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo US, Ng AW,. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: A comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer 2003; 99: 331-335.
43. Sawaya GF,. Evidence-based medicine versus liquid-based cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 2-3.
44. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J,. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 167-177.
45. Schiffman M, Solomon D,. Screening and prevention methods for cervical cancer. J Am Med Assoc 2009; 302: 1809-1810.
46. Swierczynski SL, Lewis-Chambers S, Anderson JR, Keller JM, Hinkle DA, Ali SZ,. Impact of liquid-based gynecologic cytology on an HIV-positive population. Acta Cytol 2004; 48: 165-172.
47. Thrall MJ, Russell DK, Bonfiglio TA, Hoda RS,. Use of the ThinPrep Imaging System does not alter the frequency of interpreting Papanicolaou tests as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Cytojournal 2008; 5: 10.
48. Wilbur DC, Black-Schaffer WS, Luff RD, et al. The Becton Dickinson FocalPoint GS Imaging System: Clinical trials demonstrate significantly improved sensitivity for the detection of important cervical lesions. Am J Clin Pathol 2009; 132: 767-775.
49. Sherman ME, 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.
50. Simsir A, Ioffe O, Sun P, Elgert P, Cangiarella J, Levine PH,. Effect of Bethesda 2001 on reporting of atypical squamous cells (ASC) with special emphasis on atypical squamous cells-cannot rule out high grade (ASC-H). Diagn Cytopathol 2006; 34: 62-66.
51. Louro 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.
52. Quddus MR, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM, Lauchlan SC, Singer DB, Hutchinson ML,. Atypical squamous metaplastic cells: Reproducibility, outcome, and diagnostic features on ThinPrep Pap test. Cancer 2001; 93: 16-22.
53. Shidham VB, Rao RN, Machhi J, Chavan A,. Microglandular hyperplasia has a cytomorphological spectrum overlapping with atypical squamous cells-cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H). Diagn Cytopathol 2004; 30: 57-61.
54. Patton AL, Duncan L, Bloom L, Phaneuf G, Zafar N,. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude a high-grade intraepithelial lesion and its clinical significance in postmenopausal, pregnant, postpartum, and contraceptive-use patients. Cancer 2008; 114: 481-488.
55. Saad RS, Dabbs DJ, Kordunsky L, et al. Clinical significance of cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high grade, in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Pathol 2006; 126: 381-388.
56. Selvaggi SM,. Reporting of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) on cervical samples: Is it significant? Diagn Cytopathol 2003; 29: 38-41.
57. Sherman ME, Castle PE, Solomon D,. Cervical cytology of atypical squamous cells-cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H): Characteristics and histologic outcomes. Cancer 2006; 108: 298-305.
58. Sherman ME, Tabbara SO, Scott DR, et al. "ASCUS, rule out HSIL": Cytologic features, histologic correlates, and human papillomavirus detection. Mod Pathol 1999; 12: 335-342.
59. Liman AK, Giampoli EJ, Bonfiglio TA,. Should women with atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, receive reflex human papillomavirus-DNA testing? Cancer 2005; 105: 457-460.
60. Reid-Nicholson M, Gatscha RM, Riedel ER, Lin O,. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high grade intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H): Does HPV matter? Diagn Cytopathol 2007; 35: 1-5.
61. Wu HH, Allen SL, Kirkpatrick JL, Elsheikh TM,. Reflex high-risk human papilloma virus DNA test is useful in the triage of women with atypical squamous cells cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Diagn Cytopathol 2006; 34: 707-710.
62. Onuma K, Saad RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Kanbour AI, Dabbs DJ,. Clinical implications of the diagnosis "atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion" in pregnant women. Cancer 2006; 108: 282-287.
63. Owens CL, Moats DR, Burroughs FH, Gustafson KS,. "Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion" is a distinct cytologic category: Histologic outcomes and HPV prevalence. Am J Clin Pathol 2007; 128: 398-403.
64. Alsharif M, Kjeldahl K, Curran C, Miller S, Gulbahce HE, Pambuccian SE,. Clinical significance of the diagnosis of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Cancer Cytopathol 2009; 117: 92-100.
65. Cox JT, Schiffman M, Solomon D,. Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 1406-1412.
66. Saad RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Lu E, Modery J, Kanbour A,. Cytomorphologic analysis and histological correlation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in postmenopausal women. Diagn Cytopathol 2006; 34: 467-471.
67. Thiryayi SA, Marshall J, Rana DN,. Differentiating between endocervical glandular neoplasia and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in endocervical crypts: Cytological features in ThinPrep and SurePath cervical cytology samples. Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 37: 315319.
68. Renshaw AA, Mody DR, Wang E, Haja J, Colgan TJ,. Hyperchromatic crowded groups in cervical cytology-differing appearances and interpretations in conventional and ThinPrep preparations: A study from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130: 332-336.
69. Selvaggi SM,. Cytologic features of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions involving endocervical glands on ThinPrep cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2002; 26: 181-185.
70. Obwegeser JH, Brack S,. Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective, randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap Test with the conventional Pap Test, including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol 2001; 45: 709-714.
71. Cengel KA, Day SJ, Davis-Devine S, et al. Effectiveness of the SurePath liquid-based Pap test in automated screening and in detection of HSIL. Diagn Cytopathol 2003; 29: 250-255.
72. Clark SB, Dawson AE,. Invasive squamous-cell carcinoma in ThinPrep specimens: Diagnostic clues in the cellular pattern. Diagn Cytopathol 2002; 26: 1-4.
73. Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F,. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol 1999; 43: 81-85.
74. Bai H, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM,. ThinPrep Pap Test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol 2000; 23: 19-22.
75. Diaz-Montes TP, Farinola MA, Zahurak ML, Bristow RE, Rosenthal DL,. Clinical utility of atypical glandular cells (AGC) classification: Cytohistologic comparison and relationship to HPV results. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 104: 366-371.
76. Keyhani-Rofagha S, Vesey-Shecket M,. Diagnostic value, feasibility, and validity of preparing cell blocks from fluid-based gynecologic cytology specimens. Cancer 2002; 96: 204-209.
77. Koizumi JH,. Nipplelike protrusions in endocervical and other cells: Further observations. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 519-528.
78. Ducatman BS, Wang HH, Jonasson JG, Hogan CL, Antonioli DA,. Tubal metaplasia: A cytologic study with comparison to other neoplastic and non-neoplastic conditions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol 1993; 9: 98-103; discussion 103-105.
79. Wood MD, Horst JA, Bibbo M,. Weeding atypical glandular cell look-alikes from the true atypical lesions in liquid-based Pap tests: A review. Diagn Cytopathol 2007; 35: 12-17.
80. Kim HS, Park JS, Park JY, Hong SR, Seong SJ, Wilbur DC,. Comparison of two preparation methods for endocervical evaluation. Acta Cytol 2007; 51: 742-748.
81. Liang J, Mittal KR, Wei JJ, Yee H, Chiriboga L, Shukla P,. Utility of p16INK4a, CEA, Ki67, P53 and ER/PR in the differential diagnosis of benign, premalignant, and malignant glandular lesions of the uterine cervix and their relationship with Silverberg scoring system for endocervical glandular lesions. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2007; 26: 71-75.
82. Hecht JL, Sheets EE, Lee KR,. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin-layer preparations. Cancer 2002; 96: 1-4.
83. Gurbuz A, Karateke A, Kabaca C, Kir G,. Atypical glandular cells: Improvement in cytohistologic correlation by the 2001 Bethesda system. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005; 15: 903-910.
84. Ozkan F, Ramzy I, Mody DR,. Glandular lesions of the cervix on thin-layer Pap tests. Validity of cytologic criteria used in identifying significant lesions. Acta Cytol 2004; 48: 372-379.
85. Ramsaroop R, Chu I,. Accuracy of diagnosis of atypical glandular cells-Conventional and ThinPrep. Diagn Cytopathol 2006; 34: 614-619.
86. Duska LR,. Can we improve the detection of glandular cervical lesions: The role and limitations of the Pap smear diagnosis atypical glandular cells (AGC). Gynecol Oncol 2009; 114: 381-382.
87. Cangiarella JF, Chhieng DC,. Atypical glandular cells-An update. Diagn Cytopathol 2003; 29: 271-279.
88. Lee CY, Ng WK,. Follow-up study of atypical glandular cells in gynecologic cytology using conventional Pap smears and liquid-based preparations: Impact of the Bethesda System 2001. Acta Cytol 2008; 52: 159-168.
89. Wang N, Emancipator SN, Rose P, Rodriguez M, Abdul-Karim FW,. Histologic follow-up of atypical endocervical cells. Liquid-based, thin-layer preparation vs. conventional Pap smear. Acta Cytol 2002; 46: 453-457.
90. Chivukula M, Austin RM, Shidham VB,. Evaluation and significance of hyperchromatic crowded groups (HCG) in liquid-based paps. Cytojournal 2007; 4: 2.
91. Torres JC, Derchain SF, Gontijo RC, et al. Atypical glandular cells: Criteria to discriminate benign from neoplastic lesions and squamous from glandular neoplasia. Cytopathology 2005; 16: 295-302.
92. Zhao C, Florea A, Onisko A, Austin RM,. Histologic follow-up results in 662 patients with Pap test findings of atypical glandular cells: Results from a large academic womens hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 114: 383-389.
93. Schorge JO, Hossein Saboorian M, Hynan L, Ashfaq R,. ThinPrep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study. Cancer 2002; 96: 338-343.
94. Selvaggi SM,. Background features of endometrial carcinoma on ThinPrep cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2005; 33: 162-165.
95. Nora LC, Azara CZ, de Sousa Pace EL, et al. Cytomorphological criteria, subclassifications of endocervical glandular cell abnormalities, and histopathological outcome: A frequency study. Diagn Cytopathol 2010; 38: 806-810.
96. Zaino RJ,. Symposium part I: Adenocarcinoma in situ, glandular dysplasia, and early invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002; 21: 314-326.
97. Hata S, Mikami Y, Manabe T,. Diagnostic significance of endocervical glandular cells with "golden-yellow" mucin on pap smear. Diagn Cytopathol 2002; 27: 80-84.
98. Kumar N, Bongiovanni M, Molliet MJ, Pelte MF, Egger JF, Pache JC,. Diverse glandular pathologies coexist with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in cyto-histological review of atypical glandular cells on ThinPrep specimens. Cytopathology 2009; 20: 351-358.
99. Moritani S, Ioffe OB, Sagae S, Dahmoush L, Silverberg SG, Hattori T,. Mitotic activity and apoptosis in endocervical glandular lesions. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002; 21: 125-133.
100. Parellada CI, Schivartche PL, Pereyra EA, Chuery AC, Mioni SM, Carvalho FM,. Atypical glandular cells on cervical smears. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002; 78: 227-234.
101. Simsir A, Hwang S, Cangiarella J, et al. Glandular cell atypia on Papanicolaou smears: Interobserver variability in the diagnosis and prediction of cell of origin. Cancer 2003; 99: 323-330.
102. Saad RS, Takei H, Liu YL, Silverman JE, Lipscomb JT, Ruiz B,. Clinical significance of a cytologic diagnosis of atypical glandular cells, favor endometrial origin, in Pap smears. Acta Cytol 2006; 50: 48-54.
103. Thrall M, Kjeldahl K, Gulbahce HE, Pambuccian SE,. Liquid-based Papanicolaou test (SurePath) interpretations before histologic diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasias and carcinomas: Study of 272 cases classified by the 2001 Bethesda system. Cancer 2007; 111: 217-223.
104. Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM,. Detection of endometrial adenocarcinoma with the ThinPrep Pap test. Diagn Cytopathol 2000; 23: 260-265.
105. Zhou J, Tomashefski J, Jr, Khiyami A,. Diagnostic value of the thin-layer, liquid-based Pap test in endometrial cancer: A retrospective study with emphasis on cytomorphologic features. Acta Cytol 2007; 51: 735-741.
106. Raab SS,. Can glandular lesions be diagnosed in pap smear cytology? Diagn Cytopathol 2000; 23: 127-133.
107. Green KM, Turyan HV, Jones JB, Hoda RS,. Metastatic lobular carcinoma in a ThinPrep Pap test: Cytomorphology and differential diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol 2005; 33: 58-59.
108. Hanley KZ, Tadros TS, Briones AJ, Birdsong GG, Mosunjac MB,. Hematologic malignancies of the female genital tract diagnosed on liquid-based Pap test: Cytomorphologic features and review of differential diagnoses. Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 37: 61-67.
109. Solomon D, Papillo JL, Davey DD,. Statement on HPV DNA test utilization. Am J Clin Pathol 2009; 131: 768-739; discussion 770-773.
110. Ronnett BM, Manos MM, Ransley JE, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): Cytopathologic features, histopathologic results, and human papillomavirus DNA detection. Hum Pathol 1999; 30: 816-825.
111. Krane JF, Lee KR, Sun D, Yuan L, Crum CP,. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Outcome predictions based on human papillomavirus testing. Am J Clin Pathol 2004; 121: 87-92.
112. Chen L, Yang B,. Assessment of reflex human papillomavirus DNA testing in patients with atypical endocervical cells on cervical cytology. Cancer 2008; 114: 236-241.
113. Afify A, Yu C, Hejazi N, Howell L,. The diagnostic utility of cell blocks prepared from residual SurePath Pap material for detection of human papilloma virus. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2009; 17: 108-114.
114. Dabbs DJ, Abendroth CS, Grenko RT, Wang X, Radcliffe GE,. Immunocytochemistry on the Thinprep processor. Diagn Cytopathol 1997; 17: 388-392.
115. Sharpless KE, O'Sullivan DM, Schnatz PF,. The utility of human papillomavirus testing in the management of atypical glandular cells on cytology. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2009; 13: 72-78.
116. Nassar A, O'Reilly K, Cohen C, Siddiqui MT,. Comparison of p16INK4A and Hybrid Capture 2 human papillomavirus testing as adjunctive tests in liquid-based gynecologic SurePath preparations. Diagn Cytopathol 2008; 36: 142-148.
117. Samama B, Schaeffer C, Boehm N,. P16 expression in relation to human papillomavirus in liquid-based cervical smears. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 109: 285-290.
118. Garcia MT, Acar BC, Jorda M, Gomez-Fernandez C, Ganjei-Azar P,. Use of p63 for distinction of glandular versus squamous lesions in cervicovaginal specimens. Cancer 2007; 111: 54-57.
119. Friedlander MA, Rudomina D, Lin O,. Effectiveness of the Thin Prep Imaging System in the detection of adenocarcinoma of the gynecologic system. Cancer 2008; 114: 7-12.
120. Jayamohan Y, Karabakhtsian RG, Banks HW, Davey DD,. Accuracy of Thinprep Imaging System in detecting atypical glandular cells. Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 37: 479-482.
121. Parker EM, Foti JA, Wilbur DC,. FocalPoint slide classification algorithms show robust performance in classification of high-grade lesions on SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology slides. Diagn Cytopathol 2004; 30: 107-110.
122. Wright TC, Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D,. 2006 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197: 346-355.