logo efcs bianco


This content is also available in: English Italiano Português Čeština Română

Bookmark (0)

No account yet? Register

Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J et al. (Eds). (2008). European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening, second edition. Chapter 3 pp.87-88. European Communities 2008. Available as www.screening.iarc.fr/doc/ND7007ENC_002.pdf

Blanks RG, Kelly RS (2010). Comparison of cytology and histology results in English cervical screening laboratories before and after liquid-based cytology conversion: do the data provide evidence for a single category of high-grade dyskaryosis? Cytopathology 21:368-73.

Bolick DR, Kerr J, Staley BE, Ke Lin K (2002). Effect of cellularity in the detection rates of high grade and low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Acta Cytol 46: 911-1022. Abstract p. 992-3.

Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, Solomon D (2009). Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol 113:18-25.

Castle PE, Bulten J, Confortini M et al. (2010). Age-specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology: data from two randomized clinical trials. BJOG 117: 1067-73.

Demay RM. Cytopathology of false negatives preceding cervical carcinoma (1996). Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1110-3.

Denton KJ, Herbert A, Turnbull LS et al. (2008). The revised BSCC terminology for abnormal cervical cytology.  Cytopathology 19:137-57.

Duvall E. ABC3 and LBC – adequate or not?  Cytopathology 2013;24:211-5.

Herbert A (2004). BSCC terminology for cervical cytology: two or three tiers? Why not five, seven or even 14?  Cytopathology 15:245-51.

Herbert A, Bergeron C, Wiener H et al. (2007). European guidelines for cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cervical cytology terminology. Cytopathology 18:213-19.

Holowaty P, Miller AB, Rohan T, To T (1999). Natural history of dysplasia of the uterine cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:252-8.

Kitchener HC, Gittins M, Desai M et al. (2015). A study of cellular counting to determine minimum thresholds for adequacy for liquid-based cervical cytology using a survey and counting protocol. Health Technol Assess 19 (22). Available as http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/volume-19/issue-22#abstract

Johnson J, Patnick J (2000). Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting, and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology, 2nd edition. NHSCSP Publication No. 1. Sheffield NHS Screening Programmes, 2000.

Kurman RJ, Solomon D (1994). The Bethesda system for reporting cervicovaginal cytologic diagnoses: definitions, criteria and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.

Mitchell H, Medley G. (1991). Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical cell status. Lancet 337: 265-7.

Nayar R, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes, 2nd Edn. New York: Springer; 2004.

Nayar R, Wilbur DC.  The Bethesda System for Reporting Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes, 3nd Edn. New York: Springer; 2015.

Sheffield MV, Simsir A, Talley L et al (2003). Interobserver variability in assessing adequacy of the squamous component in conventional cervicovaginal smears. Am J Clin Pathol 119;367-73.

Siebers AG, de Leeuw H, Verbeek AL, Hanselaar AG (2003). Prevalence of squamous abnormalities in women with a recent smear without endocervical cells is lower as to compared to women with smears with endocervical cells. Cytopathology 14:58-65. 2003.

Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Vedder JE, Arbyn M, Bulten J (2012). Causes and relevance of unsatisfactory and satisfactory but limited by smears of liquid-based compared with conventional cervical cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 136;76-83.

Siebers AG, van der Laak JAWM, Huberts-Manders R, Vedder JEM, Bulten J (2013). Accurate assessment of cell density in low cellular liquid-based cervical cytology. Cytopathology 24:216-21.

Smith JH (2012). ABC3 Part I: a review of the guidelines for terminology, classification and management of cervical cytology in England. Cytopathology 23:353-9.

Studeman KD, Ioffe OB, Pusczkiewicz K, Sauvegeot J, Henry MR (2003). Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of detecting squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 47: 605-10.