• 1
    Laverty CR, Farnsworth A, Thurloe J, Bowditch R. The reliability of a cytological prediction of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988; 28: 307312.
  • 2
    Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, Laverty CR. Subdividing atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance according to the Australian modified Bethesda, system: analysis of outcomes. Cancer. 2000; 90: 8795.
  • 3
    Lee KR, Minter LJ, Granter SR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. A study of 34 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1997; 107: 3035.
  • 4
    Mitchell H, Medley G, Gordon I, Giles G. Cervical cytology reported as negative and risk of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: no strong evidence of benefit. Br J Cancer. 1995; 71: 894897.
  • 5
    Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. A decade of change. A report on Australia's national cervical screening program 1998–1999. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, 2000.
  • 6
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Cervical screening in Australia 1997–1998. AIHW Cat No 9 (Cancer series no. 14). Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2000.
  • 7
    Zheng T, Holford TR, Ma Z, et al. The continuing increase in adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: a birth cohort phenomenon. Int J Epidemiol. 1996; 25: 252258.
  • 8
    Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR, Key CR. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States—a 24-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 78: 97105.
  • 9
    Schoolland M, Allpress S, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma of the cervix: sensitivity of diagnosis by cervical smear and cytologic patterns and pitfalls in 24 cases. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2002; 96: 513.
  • 10
    Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA. 1999; 281: 16051610.
  • 11
    Mitchell H, Higgins V. Recent negative cytology prior to histologically confirmed carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994; 34: 178181.
  • 12
    Betchley MA, Smith LA. Efficacy of screening for glandular neoplasms of the uterine cervix [abstract]. Presented at the 12th International Congress of Cytology, Madrid, Spain, May 22–25, 1995.
  • 13
    Ostör A, Rome R, Quinn M. Microinvasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a clinicopathologic study of 77 women. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89: 8893.
  • 14
    Lee KR, Flynn CE. Early invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Cancer. 2000; 89: 10481055.
  • 15
    Mitchell H, Medley G. Cytological reporting of cervical abnormalities according to endocervical status. Br J Cancer. 1993, 67: 585588.
  • 16
    Plaxe SC, Saltzstein SL. Estimation of the duration of the preclinical phase of cervical adenocarcinoma suggests that there is ample opportunity for screening. Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 75: 5561.
  • 17
    Lee KR, Genest DR, Minter LJ, Granter SR, Cibas ES. Adenocarcinoma in situ in cervical smears with a small cell (endometrioid) pattern: distinction from cells directly sampled from the upper endocervical canal or lower segment of the endometrium. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998; 109: 738742.
  • 18
    Lee KR. Adenocarcinoma in situ with a small cell (endometrioid) pattern in cervical smears: a test of the distinction from benign mimics using specific criteria. Cancer. 1999; 87: 254258.