6
The Bethesda System for Reporting cervical cytology
31. 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
2004:28(11):1224-1229.
32. Fidda N, Miron J, Rodgers Wh, et al.
Impact of the new Bethesda system 2001
on specimen adequacy of cervicovaginal
smears.
Diagn Cytopathol
2004;30:
235-239.
33. Quddus MR, Sung CJ, Eklund CM, et al.
ASC:SIL ratio following implementation
of 2001 Bethesda system.
Diagn Cytopathol
2004;30(4):240-242.
34. Prandi S, Beccati D, Aloysio GD, et al.
Applicability of the Bethesda system
2001 to a public health setting.
Cancer
Cytopathol
2006;108(5):271-276.
35. Colgan TJ, Woodhouse SL, Styer PE, et al.
Reparative changes and the false-
positive/false-negative Papanicolaou
test.
Arch Pathol Lab Med
2001;125(1):
134-140.
36. Snyder TM, Renshaw AA, Styer PE, et al.
for the Cytopathology Resource Com-
mittee. Altered recognition of reparative
changes in ThinPrep specimens in the
College of American Pathologists Gyne-
cologic Cytology Program.
Arch Pathol
Lab Med
2005;129(7):861-865.
37. Ponder TB, Easley KO, Davila RM.
Glandular cells in vaginal smears from
posthysterectomy patients.
Acta Cytol
1997;41:1701-1704.
38. Bwetra C. Columnar cells in posthyster-
ectomy vaginal smears.
Diagn Cytopathol
1992;8(4):342-345.
39. Greenspan DL, Cardillo M, Davey DD, 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 TJ, Genest DR, Cibas ES. 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 sup-
plemental questionnaire on Laboratory
Practice: ASCUS. College of American
Pathologists, 1994.
42. Ho GYF, Bierman R., Beardsle L, et al.
Natural history of cervicovaginal papil-
lomavirus infection in young women.
N Engl J Med
1998;338:423-428.
43. Raffle AE, Alden B, Mackenzie EFD.
Detection rates for abnormal cervical
smears: What are we screening for?
Lancet
1995;345:1469-1473.
44. Sidawy MK, Tabbara SO. Reactive
change and atypical squamous cells
of undetermined significance in
Papanicolaou smears: A cytohisto-
logic correlation.
Diagn Cytopathol
1993;9:423-429.
45. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT,
et al. Toward objective quality assurance
in cervical cytopathology.
Am J Clin Pathol
1994;102:182-187.
46. Stoler MH, 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 MH. New Bethesda terminology
and evidence based management guide-
lines 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 BA, Novis DA. Follow-up of abnor-
mal gynecologic cytology: a College of
American Pathologists Q-probes study of
16 132 cases from 306 laboratories.
Arch
Pathol Lab Med
2000;124:665-671.
51. Sherman ME, Solomon D, Schiffman M.
Qualification of ASCUS: a comparison of
equivocal LSIL and Equivocal HSIL cervi-
cal cytology in the ASCUS LSIL Triage
Study.
Am J Clin Pathol
2001;116:386-394.
52. Sordon M, Dilworth HP, Ronnett BM.
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 JT, Solomon D, Schiffman M. Pro-
spective 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 Munoz N, Bosch FX, Sanjosé
SD, et al. Epidemiologic classification
of human papillomavirus types associ-
ated with cervical cancer.
N Engl J Med
2003;348(6):518-527.
56. Lorincz AT, Reid R, Jenson AB, et al.
Human papillomavirus infection of the
cervix: Relative risk associations of 15
common anogenital types.
Obstet Gynecol
1992;79:328-337.
57. Wright TC, Schiffman M. Adding a test
for human papillomavirus DNA to
cervical cancer screening.
N Engl J Med
2003;348(6):489-490.
58. Khan MJ, Castle PE, Lorincz AT, et al. The
elevated 10-year risk of cervical precan-
cer 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 SL, Stastny JF, et al.
Interobserver variability in subclassifica-
tion 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 AA, Henry MR, Birdsong GG,
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 CJ, 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 BA, Davey DD. Quality manage-
ment in gynecologic cytology using
interlaboratory comparison.
Arch Pathol
Lab Med
2000;124:672-681.
64. Evans MF, Adamson CS, Papillo JL, et
al. Distribution of human papilloma-
virus 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 AA, Mody DR, Lozano LR. et
al. Detection of adenocarcinoma in situ
of the cervix in Papanicolaou tests: com-
parison of diagnostic accuracy with other
high-grade lesions.
Arch Pathol Lab Med
2004;128:53-157.
66. Eddy GL, Strumpf KB, Wojtowycz MA,
et al. Biopsy findings in five hundred
thirty-one patients with atypical glan-
dular cells of uncertain significance as
defined by the Bethesda System.
Am J
Obstet Gynecol
1997;177:1188-1195.
67. Burja IT, Thompson SK, Sawyer WL, 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 TP, Farinola MA, Zahurak
ML, et al. Clinical utility of atypical
glandular cells (AGC) classification:
cytohistologic comparison and rela-
tionship to HPV results.
Gynecol Oncol
2007,14(2):366-371.
69. Selvaggi SM. Cytologic features of
squamous cell carcinoma
in situ
involving
endocervical glands in endocervical
cytobrush specimens.
Acta Cytol
1994;38:687-692.
70. Novotny DB, Maygarden SJ, Johnson
DE, 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 cervi-
cal smears from women who have
undergone cone biopsy.
Acta Cytol
1993;37:705-709.
72. de Peralta-Venturino MN, Purslow MJ,
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.
89
previous page 91 ComprehensiveCytopathology 1104p 2008 read online next page 93 ComprehensiveCytopathology 1104p 2008 read online Home Toggle text on/off