• 1
    National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. JAMA. 1988; 262: 931934.
  • 2
    National Cancer Institute Workshop. The revised Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. Report of 1991 Workshop. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1992; 14: 161163.
  • 3
    Kurman JK, Solomon D. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. In: KurmanJK, SolomonD, editors. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: definitions, criteria and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York: Springer, 1994: 3043.
  • 4
    Emerson RE, Puzanov A, Brunnemer C, Younger C, Cramer H. Long-term follow-up of women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS). Diagn Cytopathol. 2002; 27: 153157.
  • 5
    Becker E Jr., Edelweiss MI, Nonnenmacher B, Bozzetti MC. Prevalence and epidemiologic correlates of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in women at low risk for cervical cancer. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001; 24: 276282.
  • 6
    Jones W. Impact of the Bethesda System. Cancer. 1995; 76: 19141918.
  • 7
    Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 90: 278284.
  • 8
    Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo US, Ng AW. Liquid based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2003; 99: 331335.
  • 9
    Sidawy MK, Tabbara SO. Reactive change and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in Papanicolaou smears: a cytohistologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol. 1993; 9: 423429.
  • 10
    Collins LC, Wang HH, Abu-Jawdeh GM. Qualifiers of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance help in patient management. Mod Pathol. 1996; 9: 677681.
  • 11
    Gonzalez D, Hernandez E, Anderson L, Heller P, Atkinson BF. Clinical significance of a cervical cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Favoring a reactive process or low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. J Reprod Med. 1996; 41: 719723.
  • 12
    Kline MJ, Davey DD. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance qualified: a follow-up study. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996; 14: 380384.
  • 13
    Sheils LA, Wilbur DC. Atypical cells of undetermined significance: stratification of the risk of association with, or progression to, squamous intraepithelial lesions based on morphologic subcategorization. Acta Cytol. 1997; 41: 10651072.
  • 14
    Crum CP, Genest DR, Krane JF, et al. Subclassifying atypical squamous cells in Thin-Prep cervical cytology correlates with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA. Am J Clin Pathol. 1999; 112: 384390.
  • 15
    Sherman ME, Tabbara SO, Scott DR, et al. “ASCUS, rule out HSIL”: cytologic features, histologic correlates, and human papilloma virus detection. Mod Pathol. 1999; 12: 335342.
  • 16
    Solomon D, Frable WJ, Vooijs GP, et al. ASCUS and AGUS criteria. International Academy of Cytology Towards the 21st Century: an international expert conference and tutorial. Acta Cytol. 1998; 42: 1624.
  • 17
    Malik SN, Wilkinson EJ, Drew PA, Bennett BB, Hardt NS. Do qualifiers of ASCUS distinguish between low- and high-risk patients? Acta Cytol. 1999; 43: 376380.
  • 18
    Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System. Terminology and reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002; 287: 21142149.
  • 19
    Titus K. HPV test: antidote to ASCUS headache? CAP Today. 1996; 10: 5258.
  • 20
    Williams ML, Rimm DL, Pedigo MA, Frable WJ. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: correlative histologic and follow-up studies from an academic medical center. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997; 16: 17.
  • 21
    Rader AE, Rose PG, Rodriguez M, Mansbacher S, Pitlik D, Abdul Karim FW. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in women over 55. Comparison with the general population and implications for management. Acta Cytol. 1999; 43: 357362.
  • 22
    Kinney WK, Manos MM, Hurley LB, Ransley JE. Where's the high grade cervical neoplasia? The importance of minimally abnormal Papanicolaou diagnoses. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91: 973976.
  • 23
    Brown MS, Phillips GL. Management of the mildly abnormal Pap smear: a conservative approach. Gynecol Oncol. 1985; 22: 149153.
  • 24
    Kurman RJ, Henson DE, Herbst AL, Noller KL, Schiffman MH. Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology. JAMA. 1994; 271: 18661869.
  • 25
    Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Willan AR, Chan BK, Howell LP. Natural history of cervical lesions: a metaanalysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 92: 727735.
  • 26
    Kohan S, Noumoff J, Beckman EM, Morris M, Weiner E, Douglas GW. Colposcopic screening of women with atypical Papanicolaou smears. J Reprod Med. 1985; 30: 383387.
  • 27
    Maier RC, Schultenover SJ. Evaluation of the atypical squamous cell Papanicolau smear. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1986; 5: 242248.
  • 28
    Davis GL, Hernandez E, Davis JL, Miyazawa K. Atypical squamous cells in Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 69: 4346.
  • 29
    Jones DE, Creasman WT, Dombroski RA, Lentz SS, Waeltz JL. Evaluation of the atypical Pap smear. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 157: 544549.
  • 30
    Noumoff JS. Atypia in cervical cytology as a risk factor for intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 156: 628631.
  • 31
    Soutter WP, Wisdom S, Brough AK, Monaghan JM. Should patients with mild atypia in a cervical smear be referred for colposcopy? Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1986; 93: 7074.
  • 32
    Andrews S, Hernandez E, Miyazawa K. Paired Papanicolaou smears in the evaluation of atypical squamous cells. Obstet Gynecol. 1989; 5: 747750.
  • 33
    Lindheim SR, Smith-Nguyen G. Aggressive evaluation for atypical squamous cells in Papanicolaou smears. J Reprod Med. 1990; 35: 971973.
  • 34
    Slawson DC, Bennett JH, Herman JM. Follow-up Papanicolaou smear for cervical atypia: are we missing significant disease? J Fam Pract. 1993; 36: 289293.
  • 35
    Paavonen J, Kiviat NB, Wolner-Hanssen P, et al. Significance of mild cervical cytologic atypia in a sexually transmitted disease clinic population. Acta Cytol. 1989; 33: 831838.
  • 36
    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.
  • 37
    Cannistra SA, Niloff JM. Cancer of the uterine cervix. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334: 10301038.
  • 38
    Burk RD, Kelly P, Feldman J, et al. Declining prevalence of cervicovaginal human papillomavirus infection with age is independent of other factors. Sex Transm Dis. 1996; 23: 333341.
  • 39
    Carson HJ, DeMay RM. The mode ages of women with cervical dysplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 82: 430434.
  • 40
    Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol. 2000; 151: 11581171.