PART TWO
Diagnostic Cytology
22.
Maksem JA. Performance characteristics
of the Indiana university medical center
endometrial sampler (tao brush) in an out-
patient office setting, first year's outcomes:
Recognizing histological patterns in cytol-
ogy preparations of endometrial brushings.
Diagn Cytopathol
2000;22:186-195.
23.
Papaefthimiou M, Symiakaki H, Ment-
zelopoulou P, et al. The role of liquid-
based cytology associated with curettage
in the investigation of endometrial
lesions from postmenopausal women.
Cytopathology
2005;16:32-39.
24.
Fujihara A, Norimatsu Y, Kobayashi TK, et al.
Direct intrauterine sampling with utero-
brush: Cell preparation by the "flicked"
method.
Diagn Cytopathol
2006;34:486-490.
25.
Tao LC. Direct intrauterine sampling:
The IUMC endometrial sampler.
Diagn
Cytopathol
1997;17:153-159.
26.
Yang GC, Wan LS. Endometrial biopsy
using the tao brush method. A study
of 50 women in a general gynecologic
practice.
J Reprod Med
2000;45:109-114.
27.
Fox CH, Turner FG, Johnson WL, et al.
Endometrial cytology. A new technique.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
1962;83:1582-1591.
28.
Ferenczy A, Gelfand MM. Outpatient
endometrial sampling with endocyte:
Comparative study of its effectiveness
with endometrial biopsy.
Obstet Gynecol
1984;63:295-302.
29.
Milan AR, Markley RL. Endometrial
cytology by a new technic.
Obstet Gyne-
col
1973;42:469-475.
30.
Inoue Y, Ikeda M, Kimura K, et al.
Accuracy of endometrial aspiration in
the diagnosis of endometrial cancer.
Acta Cytol
1983;27:477-481.
31.
Ginsberg NA, Padleckas R, Javaheri G.
Diagnostic reliability of mi-mark helix
technique in endometrial neoplasia.
Obstet Gynecol
1983;62:225-230.
32.
Jameson MH. A clinical appraisal of
techniques for obtaining fresh cells
for endometrial cytology.
N Z Med J
1961;60:316-323.
33.
Rascoe RR. Endometrial aspiration
smear in diagnosis of malignancy of
the uterine corpus.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
1963;87:921-925.
34.
LaPolla JP, Nicosia S, McCurdy C, et al.
Experience with the EndoPap device for the
cytologic detection of uterine cancer and its
precursors: A comparison of the EndoPap
with fractional curettage or hysterectomy.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
1990;163:1055-1059.
discussion 1059-1060.
35.
Bistoletti P, Hjerpe A. Routine use of
endometrial cytology in clinical prac-
tice.
Acta Cytol
1993;37:867-870.
36.
Reagan JW, Sommerville RL. A cellular
study of uterine aspirations.
Am J Obstet
Gynecol
1954;68:781-785.
37.
van Hoeven KH, Zaman SS, Deger RB,
et al. Efficacy of the endo-pap sampler
in detecting endometrial lesions.
Acta
Cytol
1996;40:900-906.
38.
Critchley HO, Warner P, Lee AJ, et al.
Evaluation of abnormal uterine bleed-
ing: Comparison of three outpatient
procedures within cohorts defined by
age and menopausal status.
Health
Technol Assess
2004;8:(iii-iv),1-139.
39.
Kawana K, Yamada M, Jimbo H, et al.
Diagnostic usefulness of endometrial
aspiration cytology for endometrial
cancer cases with normal curettage find-
ings.
Acta Cytol
2005;49:507-512.
40.
Maksem J, Sager F, Bender R. Endome-
trial collection and interpretation
using the tao brush and the CytoRich
fixative system: A feasibility study.
Diagn
Cytopathol
1997;17:339-346.
41.
Demay RM. Hyperchromatic crowded
groups: Pitfalls in pap smear diagnosis.
Am J Clin Pathol
2000;114(Suppl):S36-43.
42.
Fadare O, Ghofrani M, Chacho MS, et
al. The significance of benign endome-
trial cells in cervicovaginal smears.
Adv
Anat Pathol
2005;12:274-287.
43.
Solomon D, Nayar R.
The Bethesda
Sys-
tem
for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Defi-
nitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes.
New York: Springer-Verlag; 2003:57-66.
44.
Greenspan DL, Cardillo M, Davey DD,
et al. Endometrial cells in cervical cytol-
ogy: Review of cytological features and
clinical assessment.
J Low Genit Tract Dis
2006;10:111-122.
45.
de Peralta-Venturino MN, Purslow MJ,
Kini SR. Endometrial cells of the "lower
uterine segment" (LUS) in cervical smears
obtained by endocervical brushings: a
source of potential diagnostic pitfall.
Diagn Cytopathol
1995;12:263-268.
46.
Chang A, Sandweiss L, Bose S. Cytologi-
cally benign endometrial cells in the
Papanicolaou smears of postmenopausal
women.
Gynecol Oncol
2001;80:37-43.
47.
Brogi E, Tambouret R, Bell DA. Classifi-
cation of benign endometrial glandular
cells in cervical smears from postmeno-
pausal women.
Cancer
2002;96:60-66.
48.
Thrall MJ, Kjeldahl KS, Savik K, et al.
Significance of benign endometrial cells
in papanicolaou tests from women
aged > or = 40 years.
Cancer
2005;105:207-216.
49.
Sarode VR, Rader AE, Rose PG, et al.
Significance of cytologically normal
endometrial cells in cervical smears
from postmenopausal women.
Acta
Cytol
2001;45:153-156.
50.
Mount SL, Wegner EK, Eltabbakh GH,
et al. Significant increase of benign
endometrial cells on papanicolaou
smears in women using hormone
replacement therapy.
Obstet Gynecol
2002;100:445-450.
51.
Lui M, Boerner S. Arias-stella reaction
in a cervicovaginal smear of a woman
undergoing infertility treatment: A case
report.
Diagn Cytopathol
2005;32:94-96.
52.
Vooijs GP, van der Graaf Y, Vooijs MA.
The presence of endometrial cells in
cervical smears in relation to the day of
the menstrual cycle and the method of
contraception.
Acta Cytol
1987;31:427-
433.
53.
Gondos B, King EB. Significance of
endometrial cells in cervicovaginal
smears.
Ann Clin Lab Sci
1977;7:
486-490.
54.
Ng AB, Reagan JW, Cechner RL. The
precursors of endometrial cancer: A
study of their cellular manifestations.
Acta Cytol
1973;17:439-448.
55.
Siebers AG, Verbeek AL, Massuger LF, et al.
Normal appearing endometrial cells in
cervical smears of asymptomatic post-
menopausal women have predictive value
for significant endometrial pathology.
Int J
Gynecol Cancer
2006;16:1069-1074.
56.
Simsir A, Carter W, Elgert P, et al.
Reporting endometrial cells in women
40 years and older: Assessing the clini-
cal usefulness of Bethesda 2001.
Am J
Clin Pathol
2005;123:571-575.
57.
Brogi E, Tambouret R, Bell DA. Classifi-
cation of benign endometrial glandular
cells in cervical smears from postmeno-
pausal women.
Cancer
2002;96:60-66.
58.
Gomez-Fernandez CR, Ganjei-Azar P,
Capote-Dishaw J, et al. Reporting normal
endometrial cells in pap smears: An outcome
appraisal.
Gynecol Oncol
1999;74:381-384.
59.
Australia: National Health and Medical
Research Council. Guidelines for the
management of asymptomatic women
with screen detected abnormalities. 2004.
60.
Johnson J, Patrick J.
Achievable Standards
and Benchmarks for Reporting, and Crite-
ria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology,
2nd edn. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screen-
ing Programmes, 2000.
61.
Kurman RJ, Solomon D.
The Bethesda
System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal
Cytologic Diagnoses
. Springer-Verlag:
New York; 1994,
62.
Avis NE, McKinlay SM. The Massa-
chusetts women's health study: An
epidemiologic investigation of the
menopause.
J Am Med Womens Assoc
1995;50:45-49, 63.
63.
Kocjan G, Priollet BC, Desai M, et al.
BSCC, Bethesda or other? Terminology
in cervical cytology European panel dis-
cussion.
Cytopathology
2005;16:113-119.
64.
Bean SM, Connolly K, Roberson J, et
al. Incidence and clinical significance
of morphologically benign-appearing
endometrial cells in patients age 40
years or older: The impact of the 2001
Bethesda system.
Cancer
2006;108:39-44.
65.
Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cangiarella JF,
et al. Significance of AGUS pap smears
in pregnant and postpartum women.
Acta Cytol
2001;45:294-299.
66.
Michael CW, Esfahani FM. Pregnancy-
related changes: A retrospective review
of 278 cervical smears.
Diagn Cytopathol
1997;17:99-107.
67.
Kobayashi TK, Okamoto H. Cytopathol-
ogy of pregnancy-induced cell patterns
in cervicovaginal smears.
Am J Clin
Pathol
2000;114(Suppl):S6-20.
68.
Pisharodi LR, Jovanoska S. Spectrum
of cytologic changes in pregnancy. A
review of 100 abnormal cervicovaginal
smears, with emphasis on diagnostic
pitfalls.
Acta Cytol
1995;39:905-908.
69.
Benoit JL, Kini SR. Arias-stella reac-
tion—like changes in endocervical
glandular epithelium in cervical smears
during pregnancy and postpartum
states—a potential diagnostic pitfall.
Diagn Cytopathol
1996;14:349-355.
70.
Naib zM. Single trophoblastic cells
as a source of error in the interpreta-
tion of routine vaginal smears.
Cancer
1961;14:1183-1185.
270
previous page 270 ComprehensiveCytopathology 1104p 2008 read online next page 272 ComprehensiveCytopathology 1104p 2008 read online Home Toggle text on/off