PART TWO
Diagnostic Cytology
70.
Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, 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;128:1224-1229.
71.
Bose S, Kannan V, Kline TS. Abnormal
endocervical cells. Really abnormal?
Really endocervical?
Am J Clin Pathol
1994;101:708-713.
72.
Chhieng DC, Elgert PA, Cangiarella JF,
et al. Clinical significance of atypi-
cal glandular cells of undetermined
significance. A follow-up study from
an academic medical center.
Acta Cytol
2000;44:557-566.
73.
Jonasson JG, Wang HH, Antonioli DA,
et al. Tubal metaplasi of the uterine
cervix: a prevalence study in patients
with gynecologic pathology findings.
Int
J Gynecol Pathol
1992;11:89-95.
74.
Novotny DB, Maygarden SJ, Johnson DE,
et al. Tubal metaplasia: a frequent poten-
tial pitfall in the cytologic diagnosis of
endocervical glandular dysplasia on
cervical smears.
Acta Cytol
1992;36:1-10.
75.
Van Le L, Novotny D, Dotters DJ. Distin-
guishing tubal metaplasia from endocer-
vical dysplasia on cervical Papanicolaou
smears.
Obstet Gynecol
1991;78:974-976.
76.
Suh KS, Silverberg SG. Tubal metaplasia
of the uterine cervix.
Int J Gynecol Pathol
1990;9:122-128.
77.
Ducatman BS, Wang HH, Jonasson JG,
et al. Tubal metaplasia: a cytologic study
with comparison to other neoplastic and
non-neoplastic conditions of the endo-
cervix.
Diagn Cytopathol
1993;9:98-105.
78.
Pacey NF. Glandular neoplasms of the
uterine cervix. In: Bibbo M (ed)
Compre-
hensive Cytopathology
. Philadelphia, PA:
Saunders; 1991:231-256.
79.
Covell JL, Frierson HF. Intraepithelial
neoplasia mimicking microinvasive
squamous-cell carcinoma in endocervical
brushings.
Diagn Cytopathol
1992;8:18-22.
80.
Selvaggi SM. Cytologic features of squa-
mous cell carcinoma in situ involving
endocervical glands in endocervical brush
specimens.
Acta Cytol
1994;38:687-692.
81.
Yelverton CL, Bentley RC, Olenick S, et al.
Epithelial repair of the uterine cervix:
Assessment of morphologic features and
correlations with cytologic diagnosis.
Int J
Gynecol Pathol
1996;15:338-344.
82.
Geirrson G, Woodworth FE, Patten SF,
et al. Epithelial repair and regeneration
in the uterine cervix.
Acta Cytol
1977;21:
371-378.
83.
Ng W-K, Li, ASM, Cheung LKN. Signifi-
cance of atypical repair in liquid-based
gynecologic cytology. A follow-up study
with molecular analysis for human pap-
illomavirus.
Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol)
2003;99:141-148.
84.
Risse EKJ, Beerthuizen RJCM, Vooijs
GP. Cytologic and histologic findings
in women using an IUD.
Obstet Gynecol
1981;58:569-573.
85.
Gupta PK. Intrauterine contraceptive
devices: vaginal cytology, pathologic
changes and clinical implications.
Acta
Cytol
1982;26:571-613.
86.
Fornari ML. Cellular changes in the
glandular epithelium of patients using
IUCD—a source of cytologic error.
Acta Cytol
1974;18:341-343.
87.
Mali B, Joshi JV, Wagle U, et al. Actino-
myces in cervical smears of women
using intrauterine contraceptive devices.
Acta Cytol
1986;30:367-371.
88.
Pacey F, Ayer B, Greenberg M. The
cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma
in situ of the cervix uteri and related
lesions. III. Pitfalls in diagnosis.
Acta
Cytol
1988;32:325-330.
89.
De Peralta-Venturino MN, Purslow MJ,
Kini SR. Endometrial cells of the "lower
uterine segment" (LUS) in cervical
smears obtained by endocervical brush-
ings: a source of potential diagnostic pit-
fall.
Diagn Cytopathol
1995;12:263-268.
90.
Hong SR, Park JS, Kim HS. Atypical
glandular cells of undetermined signifi-
cance in cervical smears after coniza-
tion. Cytologic features differentiating
them from adenocarcinoma in situ.
Acta Cytol
2001;45:163-168.
91.
Schnatz PF, Guile M, O'Sullivan DM,
et al. Clinical significance of atypical
glandular cells on cervical cytology.
Obstet Gynecol
2006;107:701-708.
92.
Chhieng DC, Elgart P, Cangiarella JF,
et al. Significance of AGUS Pap smears
in pregnant and postpartum women.
Acta Cytol
2001;45:294-299.
93.
Schoolland M, Segal A, Allpress S,
et al. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the
cervix. Sensitivity of detection by cervi-
cal smear.
Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol)
2002;96:330-337.
94.
Ruba S, Schooland M, Allpress, et al.
Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine
cervix. Screening and diagnostic errors
in Papanicolaou smears.
Cancer (Cancer
Cytopathol)
2004;102:280-287.
95.
Geldenhuys L, Murray ML. Sensitiv-
ity and specificity of the pap smear
for glandular lesions of the cervix and
endometrium.
Acta Cytol
2007;51:47-50.
96.
Van Aspert-Van Erp AJM, Smedts FMM,
Vooijs GP. Severe cervical glandular
cell lesions with coexisting squamous
cell lesions. A reevaluation of cytologic
(and histologic) specimens.
Cancer
(Cancer Cytopathol)
2004;102:
218-227.
97.
Krane JF, Granter SR, Trask CE, et al.
Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the
detection of adenocarcinoma of the
cervix. A study of 49 cases.
Cancer
(Cancer Cytopathol)
2001;93:8-15.
98.
Kalir T, Simsir A. Demopoulos HB, et al.
Obstacles to the early detection of
endocervical adenocarcinoma.
Int J
Gynecol Pathol
2005;24:399-403.
99.
Renshaw AA, Mody DR, Lozano RL,
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.
100. Mitchell H, Hocking J, Saville M. Cervi-
cal cytology screening history of women
diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in situ
of the cervix: a case-control study.
Acta
Cytol
2004;48:595-600.
101. Schorge JO, Saboorian MH, Hynan L,
et al. ThinPrep detection of cervical and
endometrial adenocarcinoma. A retro-
spective cohort study.
Cancer (Cancer
Cytopathol)
2002;96:338-343.
102. Schorge JO, Lea JS, Elias KJ, et al. P16
as a molecular biomarker of cervical
adenocarcinoma.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
2004;190:668-673.
103. Tringler B, Gup CJ, Singh M, et al. Eval-
uation of p16INK4a and pRb expression
in cervical squamous and glandular
neoplasia.
Hum Pathol
2004;35:
689-696.
104. Negri G, Egarter-Vigl E, Kasal A, et al.
p16INK4a is a useful marker for the diag-
nosis of adenocarcinoma of the cervix
uteri and its precursors. An immuno-
histochemical study with immunocyto-
chemical correlations.
Am J Surg Pathol
2003;27:187-193.
105. Murphy N, Ring M, Heffron CCB, et al.
p16INK4A, CD6, and MCM5: predictive
biomarkers in cervical preinvasive
neoplasia and cervical cancer.
J Clin
Pathol
2005;58:525-534.
106. Missaoui N, Hmissa S, Frappart L, et al.
p
1 6
lNK4A
overexpression and HPV infec-
tion in uterine cervix adenocarcinoma.
Virchows Arch
2006;448:597-603.
107. Reithdorf L, Riethdorf S, Lee KR, et al.
Human papillomaviruses, expression of
p
16
ink4a, and early endocervical glan-
dular neoplasia.
Hum Pathol
2002;33:
899-904.
108. Sahebali S, Depuydt CE, Segers K, et al.
P
16
ink4a as an adjunct marker in liquid-
based cervical cytology.
Int J Cancer
2004;108:871-876.
109. Nieh s, Chen S-F, Chu T-Y, et al.
Is p16 INK4A
expression more useful
than human papillomavirus test to
determine the outcome of atypi-
cal squamous cells of undetermined
significance-categorized Pap smear? A
comparative analysis using abnormal
cervical smears with follow-up biopsies.
Gynecol Oncol
2005;97:35-40.
110.
Bose S, Evans Hm Lantzy L, et al.
p16(INK4A) is a surrogate biomarker
for a subset of human papilloma virus-
associated dysplasias of the uterine
cervix as determined on the Pap smear.
Diagn Cytopathol
2005;32:21-24.
111.
Yoshida T, Fukuda T, Sano T, et al.
Usefulness of liquid-based cytology
specimens for the immunocytochemi-
cal study of p16 expression and human
papillomavirus testing. A comparative
study using simultaneously sampled
histology materials.
Cancer (Cancer
Cytopathology)
2004;102:100-108.
112. Ishikawa M, Fujii T, Masumoto N, et al.
Correlation of p16 INK4A
overexpression
with human papillomavirus infection
in cervical adenocarcinomas.
Int J Gyne-
col Pathol
2003;22:378-385.
113. Mikami Y, Kiyokawa T, Hata S, et al.
Gastrointestinal immunophenotype in
adenocarcinomas of the uterine cervix
and related glandular lesions: a pos-
sible link between lobular endocervical
glandular hyperplasia/pyloric gland
metaplasia and 'adenoma malignum.'
Mod Pathol
2004;17:962-972.
244
previous page 245 ComprehensiveCytopathology 1104p 2008 read online next page 247 ComprehensiveCytopathology 1104p 2008 read online Home Toggle text on/off