SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Nieminen P, Kallio M, Hakama M. The effect of mass screening on incidence and mortality of squamous and adenocarcinoma of cervix uteri. Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 85: 10171021.
  • 2
    Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR, Key CR. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the U.S.—A 24-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 78: 97105.
  • 3
    Sasieni P, Adams J. Changing rates of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix in England. Lancet. 2001; 357: 14901493.
  • 4
    Alfsen GC, Thoresen SØ, Kristensen GB, Skovlund E, Abeler VM. Histopathologic subtyping of cervical adenocarcinoma reveals increasing incidence rates of endometrioid tumors in all age groups: a population based study with review of all nonsquamous cervical carcinomas in Norway from 1966 to 1970, 1976 to 1980, and 1986 to 1990. Cancer. 2000; 89: 12911299.
  • 5
    Liu S, Semenciw R, Probert A, Mao Y. Cervical cancer in Canada: changing patterns in incidence and mortality. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2001; 11: 2431.
  • 6
    Sigurdsson K. The Icelandic and Nordic cervical screening programs: trends in incidence and mortality rates through 1995. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999; 78: 478485.
  • 7
    Herbert A, Singh N, Smith JAE. Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix compared with squamous cell carcinoma: a 12-year study in Southampton and South-west Hampshire. Cytopathology. 2001; 12: 2636.
  • 8
    Schoolland M, Segal A, Allpress S, Miranda A, Frost FA, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: sensitivity of detection by cervical smear. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2002; 96: 000000.
  • 9
    Wright TC Jr., Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA. 2002; 287: 21202129.
  • 10
    Krivak TC, Rose GS, McBroom JW, Carlson JW, Winter WE III, Kost ER. Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: a systematic review of therapeutic options and predictors of persistent or recurrent disease. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2001; 56: 567575.
  • 11
    Zaino RJ. Glandular lesions of the uterine cervix. Mod Pathol. 2000; 13: 261274.
  • 12
    Goldstein NS, Ahmad E, Hussain M, Hankin RC, Perez-Reyes N. Endocervical glandular atypia: does a preneoplastic lesion of adenocarcinoma in situ exist? Am J Clin Pathol. 1998; 110: 200209.
  • 13
    Massad LS, Collins YC, Meyer PM. Biopsy correlates of abnormal cervical cytology classified using the Bethesda system. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 82: 516522.
  • 14
    Soofer SB, Sidawy MK. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: clinically significant lesions and means of patient follow-up. Cancer. 2000; 90 (4): 207214.
  • 15
    Chin AB, Bristow RE, Korst LM, Walts A, Lagasse LD. The significance of atypical glandular cells on routine cervical cytologic testing in a community-based population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 182: 12781282.
  • 16
    Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cohen JM, Cangiarella JF. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in postmenopausal women. Cancer. 2001; 93: 17.
  • 17
    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.
  • 18
    Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System. Terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002; 287: 21142119.
  • 19
    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.
  • 20
    Romero AA, Key CR, Smith HO. Changing trends in the incidence rates for ADC (adenocarcinoma) and SCC (squamous cell carcinoma) incidence rates by age, race, and stage: a 25-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 80: 295296.