• 1
    Apgar BS, Zoschnick L, Wright TC. The 2001 Bethesda System terminology. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68:1992-1998.
  • 2
    Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119.
  • 3
    Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. 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;128:1224-1229.
  • 4
    DiTomasso JP, Ramzy I, Mody DR. Glandular lesions of the cervix. Validity of cytologic criteria used to differentiate reactive changes, glandular intraepithelial lesions and adenocarcinoma. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:1127-1135.
  • 5
    Bose S, Kannan V, Kline TS. Abnormal endocervical cells. Really abnormal? Really endocervical? Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:708-713.
  • 6
    DeSimone CP, Day ME, Tovar MM, Dietrich CS, Eastham ML, Modesitt SC. Rate of pathology from atypical glandular cell Pap tests classified by the Bethesda 2001 nomenclature. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1285-1291.
  • 7
    Crothers BA. The Bethesda System 2001: update on terminology and application. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;48:98-107.
  • 8
    Wright TC, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:340-345.
  • 9
    Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:829-846.
  • 10
    Dunton CJ. Management of atypical glandular cells and adenocarcinoma in situ. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2008;35:623-632.
  • 11
    Diaz-Rosario LA, Kabawat SE. Cell block preparation by inverted filter sedimentation is useful in the differential diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in ThinPrep specimens. Cancer. 2000;90:265-272.
  • 12
    DeMay RM. The Art and Science of Cytopathology. Chicago, IL: American Society for Clinical Pathology Press; 1996.
  • 13
    Yang GC, Wan LS, Papellas J, Waisman J. Compact cell blocks. Use for body fluids, fine needle aspirations and endometrial brush biopsies. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:703-706.
  • 14
    Liu H, Shi J, Wilkerson M, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of p16INK4a in liquid-based cytology specimens on cell block sections. Cancer. 2007;111:74-82.
  • 15
    Hecht SA, McCormack M. Comparison of 3 cell block techniques for detection of low frequency abnormal cells. Pathol Lab Med Int. 2013;5:1-7.
  • 16
    Akalin A, Lu D, Woda B, Moss L, Fischer A. Rapid cell blocks improve accuracy of breast FNAs beyond that provided by conventional cell blocks regardless of immediate adequacy evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008;36:523-529.
  • 17
    Istvanic S, Fischer AH, Banner BF, Eaton DM, Larkin AC, Khan A. Cell blocks of breast FNAs frequently allow diagnosis of invasion or histological classification of proliferative changes. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:263-269.
  • 18
    Adegoke O, Kulasingam S, Virnig B. Cervical cancer trends in the United States: a 35-year population-based analysis. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012;21:1031-1037.
  • 19
    Raab SS, Snider TE, Potts SA, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability using select cytologic criteria. Am J Clin Pathol. 1997;107:299-307.
  • 20
    Ayer B, Pacey F, Greenberg M, Bousfield L. The cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix uteri and related lesions. I. Adenocarcinoma in situ. Acta Cytol. 1987;31:397-411.
  • 21
    Boon ME, Baak JP, Kurver PJ, Overdiep SH, Verdonk GW. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: an underdiagnosed lesion. Cancer. 1981;48:768-773.
  • 22
    Crum CP, Cibas ES, Lee KR. Pathology of Early Cervical Neoplasia. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.
  • 23
    Johnson JE, Rahemtulla A. Endocervical glandular neoplasia and its mimics in ThinPrep Pap tests. A descriptive study. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:369-375.
  • 24
    Raab SS, Geisinger KR, Silverman JF, Thomas PA, Stanley MW. Interobserver variability of a Papanicolaou smear diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998;110:653-659.
  • 25
    Simsir A, Hwang S, Cangiarella J, et al. Glandular cell atypia on Papanicolaou smears: interobserver variability in the diagnosis and prediction of cell of origin. Cancer. 2003;99:323-330.
  • 26
    Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:215-219.
  • 27
    Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA. 1999;281:1605-1610.
  • 28
    Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT, et al. Cervical specimens collected in liquid buffer are suitable for both cytologic screening and ancillary human papillomavirus testing. Cancer. 1997;81:89-97.
  • 29
    van Hemel BM, Suurmeijer AJ. Effective application of the methanol-based PreservCyt(™) fixative and the cellient(™) automated cell block processor to diagnostic cytopathology, immunocytochemistry, and molecular biology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2013;41:734-741.