Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells in the bethesda system 2001: A comparison with the histopathological diagnosis of surgically resected specimens

Cancer Investigation

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 105-109

  Shoji, Tadahiro ^a   Takatori, Eriko ^a   Takeuchi, Satoshi ^a   Yoshizaki, Akira ^a   Uesugi, Noriyuki ^a   Sugai, Tamotsu ^a   Sugiyama, Toru ^a  

^a IWATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Atypical glandular cells; Cervical cytology; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Diagnostic accuracy; The Bethesda System 2001

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATYPICAL GLANDULAR CELL; BETHESDA SYSTEM 2001; CANCER CELL; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT CYTOLOGY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OVARY CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CONIZATION; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CONIZATION; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84898761026     PISSN: 07357907     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/07357907.2014.880453     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, Raab S, Sherman M, Wilbur D, Wright T Jr, Young N; Forum Group Members. Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The 2001 Bethesda system: Terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-2119.
2. Solomon D, Nayar R.TheBethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes, 2nd edition. New York: Springer, 2003.
3. Davey DD, NealMH, Wilbur DC, ColganTJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in theCollege of AmericanPathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Programin cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:1224-1229.
4. 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 women's hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:383-389.
5. Lee CY, Ng WK. Follow-up study of atypical glandular cells in gynecologic cytology using conventional Pap smears and liquidbased preparations: Impact of the Bethesda System 2001. Acta Cytol 2008;52:159-168.
6. Goff BA, Atanasoff P, Brown E, Muntz HG, Bell DA, Rice LW. Endocervical glandular atypia in Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:101-104.
7. Tam KF, Cheung AN, Liu KL, Ng TY, Pun TC, Chan YM, Wong LC, Ng AW, NganHY. A retrospective review on atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS) using the Bethesda 2001 classification. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91:603-607.
8. 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.
9. Sawangsang P, Sae-Teng C, Suprasert P, Srisomboon J, Khunamornpong S, Kietpeerakool C. Clinical significant of atypical glandular cells on Pap smears: Experience from a region with a high incidence of cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynecol Res 2011;37: 496-500.
10. Jadoon BA, Kehoe S, Romain K, Clelland C, Sundar SS. Analysis of outcome in women with borderline glandular change on cervical cytology. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;147:83-85.
11. Lai CR, Hsu CY, Tsay SH, Li AF. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells by the 2001 Bethesda System in cytohistologic correlation. Acta Cytol 2008;52:563-567.
12. Westin MC, Derchain SF, Rabelo-Santos SH, Angelo-Andrade LA, Sarian LO, Oliveira E, Zeferino LC. Atypical glandular cells and adenocarcinoma in situ according to the Bethesda 2001 classification: Cytohistological correlation and clinical implications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;139:79-85.
13. 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.
14. Alves RR, Rabelo-Santos SH, Ribeiro AA, Carneiro MA, Ximenes Y, Tavares SB, Saddi V, Zeferino LC.Usefulness of repeat cytology at the time of first colposcopy. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:68-73.
15. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D; 2006 ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2007;11:201-222.
16. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ; ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-2129.
17. DeSimone CP, Day ME, Tovar MM, Dietrich CS 3rd, Eastham ML, Modesitt SC. Rate of pathology from atypical glandular cell Pap tests classified by the Bethesda 2001 nomenclature.ObstetGynecol 2006;107:1285-1291.
18. Haidopoulos DA, Stefanidis K, Rodolakis A, Pilalis A, Symiakaki I, Diakomanolis E. Histologic implications of Pap smears classified as atypical glandular cells. J Reprod Med 2005;50:539-542.
19. Kumar N, BongiovanniM, Molliet MJ, Pelte MF, Egger JF, Pache JC. Reclassification and analysis of clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on ThinPrep using Bethesda 2001: Geneva experience. Swiss MedWkly 2007;137:635-641.
20. 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.