• 1
    Evans DM, Hudson EA, Brown CL et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J Clin Pathol 1986;39:93344.
  • 2
    Johnson J, Patrick J. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology, 2nd edn. NHSCSP Publication No. 1. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2000.
  • 3
    Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes, 2nd edn New York: Springer; 2003.
  • 4
    Coleman D, Day N, Douglas G et al. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Europe Against Cancer Programme. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A(Suppl. 4):S138.
  • 5
    National Health and Medical Research Council. Screening to Prevent Cervical Cancer: Guidelines for the Management of Women with Screen Detected Abnormalities. Sydney: Australian Government;2006.
  • 6
    Hebert A, Bergeron C, Wiener H et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cervical cytology terminology. Cytopathology 2007;18:2139.
  • 7
    Robertson AJ, Anderson JM, Beck JS et al. Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol 1989;42:2318.
  • 8
    Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12:18692.
  • 9
    Mitchell MF, Tortolero-Luna G, Wright T et al. Cervical human papillomavirus infection and intraepithelial neoplasia: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1996;21:1725.
  • 10
    Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P et al. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:i-196.
  • 11
    Slater DN, Rice S, Stewart R et al. Proposed Sheffield quantitative criteria in cervical cytology to assist the grading of squamous cell dyskaryosis, as the British Society for Clinical Cytology definitions require amendment. Cytopathology 2005;16:17992.
  • 12
    Borderline nuclear changes in cervical smears: guidelines on their recognition and management. National Coordinating Network (National Cervical Screening Programme), British Society for Clinical Cytology, and Royal College of Pathologists’ Working Party. J Clin Pathol 1994;47:48192.
  • 13
    Moss S, Gray A, Legood R et al. Effect of testing for human papillomavirus as a triage during screening for cervical cancer: observational before and after study. BMJ 2006;332:835.
  • 14
    Statistical Bulletin. Cervical Screening Programme, England: 2004–05. London: Department of Health; 2005.
  • 15
    Slater DN, Hewer EM, Melling SE, Rice S. External quality assessment in gynaecological cytology: The Trent Region experience. The Trent Regional Gynaecological Pathology Quality Assurance Group for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme. Cytopathology 2002;13:20619.
  • 16
    Cross P, Shiell A. Cervical cytology EQA – the Northern experience. Cytopathology 2001;12:94103.
  • 17
    Herbert A. BSCC terminology for cervical cytology: two or three tiers?. Why not five, seven or even 14? Cytopathology 2004;15:24551.
  • 18
    Denton K, Rana D, Lynch M, Desai M. Bland dyskaryosis: a new pitfall in liquid-based cytology. Cytopathology 2007;19:162166.
  • 19
    Tyler X, Gray W Other tumours and tumour-like conditions of the cervix. In: Diagnostic Cytopathology. GrayW, McKeeG (eds). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2003: pp. 791812.
  • 20
    Waddell C. Glandular neoplasms of the uterine cervix. In: Diagnostic Cytopathology. GrayW, McKeeG (eds). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone: 2003: pp. 76991.
  • 21
    Ozkan F, Ramzy I, Mody DR. Glandular lesions of the cervix on thin-layer Pap tests. Validity of cytologic criteria used in identifying significant lesions. Acta Cytol 2004;48:3729.
  • 22
    Bousfield L, Pacey F, Young Q, Krumins I, Osborn R. Expanded cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix and related lesions. Acta Cytol 1980;24:28396.
  • 23
    Ayer B, Pacey F, Greenberg M. The cytologic diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix uteri and related lesions. II. Microinvasive adenocarcinoma. Acta Cytol 1988;32:31824.
  • 24
    NSW Cervical Screening Program. Cervical Cancer Screening in New South Wales. First Annual Statistical Report 1997. NSW: Australian Government Printing; 1999: pp. 3659.
  • 25
    Johnson J. Tumours of the vulva and vagina. In: Diagnostic Cytopathology. GrayW, McKeeG (eds). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2003: pp. 81320.
  • 26
    McKenzie PR, Watson GF, Ng ABP. Cytology of body of uterus. In: Diagnostic Cytopathology. GrayW, McKeeG (eds). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2003: pp. 82146.
  • 27
    Manek S, Abdul-Karim FW, Ng ABP. Ovaries and fallopian tubes. In: Diagnostic Cytopathology. GrayW, McKeeG (eds). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2003: pp. 84758.
  • 28
    Gondos B, King EB. Significance of endometrial cells in cervicovaginal smears. Ann Clin Lab Sci 1977;7:48690.
  • 29
    Koss LG. Proliferative disorders and carcinoma of the endometrium. In: Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic Basis. KossLG (ed.). Philadelphia: J B Lippincott Co.; 1992: pp. 53580.
  • 30
    Ng ABP. Endometrial hyperplasia and carcinoma and extrauterine cancer. In: Comprehensive Cytopathology. BibboM (ed.). Philadelphia: J B Lippincott Co.; 1997: pp. 25784.
  • 31
    Nicklin JL, Perrin L, Obermair A, McConachie I, Cominos D. The significance of psammoma bodies on cervical cytology smears. Gynecol Oncol 2001;83:69.
  • 32
    Zreik TG, Rutherford TJ. Psammoma bodies in cervicovaginal smears. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:6935.
  • 33
    Muntz HG, Goff BA, McGonigle K, Isacson C. The significance of psammoma bodies in screening cervical cytologic smears. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:160912.
  • 34
    Fadare O, Chacho MS, Parkash V. Psammoma bodies in cervicovaginal smears: significance and practical implications for diagnostic cytopathology. Adv Anat Pathol 2004;11:25061.
  • 35
    Koss LG. Proliferative disorders and carcinoma of the endometrium. In: Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic Bases. KossLG (ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1979: pp. 41250.
  • 36
    Fadare O, Ghofrani M, Chacho MS, Parkash V. The significance of benign endometrial cells in cervicovaginal smears. Adv Anat Pathol 2005;12:27487.
  • 37
    Ng AB. The cellular detection of endometrial carcinoma and its precursors. Gynecol Oncol 1974;2:16279.
  • 38
    Nguyen TN, Bourdeau JL, Ferenczy A, Franco EL. Clinical significance of histiocytes in the detection of endometrial adenocarcinoma and hyperplasia. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;19:8993.
  • 39
    Chang A, Sandweiss L, Bose S. Cytologically benign endometrial cells in the Papanicolaou smears of postmenopausal women. Gynecol Oncol 2001;80:3743.
  • 40
    Nassar A, Fleisher SR, Nasuti JF. Value of histiocyte detection in Pap smears for predicting endometrial pathology. An institutional experience. Acta Cytol 2003;47:7627.
  • 41
    Ng AB, Reagan JW, Hawliczek S, Wentz BW. Significance of endometrial cells in the detection of endometrial carcinoma and its precursors. Acta Cytol 1974;18:35661.
  • 42
    Cherkis RC, Patten SF Jr, Andrews TJ, Dickinson JC, Patten FW. Significance of normal endometrial cells detected by cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:2424.
  • 43
    Zucker PK, Kasdon EJ, Feldstein ML. The validity of Pap smear parameters as predictors of endometrial pathology in menopausal women. Cancer 1985;56:225663.
  • 44
    Borderline Nuclear Changes National Slide Exchange Study Group. Do borderline nuclear changes in gynaecological cytology constitute a reliable reporting category? Cytopathology 2002;13:22031.
  • 45
    Tanaka H, Chua KL, Lindh E, Hjerpe A. Patients with various types of human papillomavirus: covariation and diagnostic relevance of cytological findings in Papanicolaou smears. Cytopathology 1993;4:27383.
  • 46
    Luesley D, Leeson S. Colposcopy and Programme Management. NHS Publication No. 20. Sheffield: NHSCSP; 2004.
  • 47
    Kennedy AW, Salmieri SS, Wirth SL et al. Results of the clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGCUS) detected on cervical cytology screening. Gynecol Oncol 1996;63:148.
  • 48
    Mohammed DK, Lavie O, De BL, Cross P, Monaghan JM. A clinical review of borderline glandular cells on cervical cytology. BJOG 2000;107:6059.
  • 49
    Zweizig S, Noller K, Reale F, Collis S, Resseguie L. Neoplasia associated with atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 1997;65:3148.
  • 50
    Van Le L, Novotny D, Dotters DJ. Distinguishing tubal metaplasia from endocervical dysplasia on cervical Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:9746.
  • 51
    Novotny DB, Maygarden SJ, Johnson DE, Frable WJ. Tubal metaplasia. A frequent potential pitfall in the cytologic diagnosis of endocervical glandular dysplasia on cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1992;36:110.
  • 52
    Ducatman BS, Wang HH, Jonasson JG, Hogan CL, Antonioli DA. Tubal metaplasia: a cytologic study with comparison to other neoplastic and non-neoplastic conditions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:98103.
  • 53
    Peralta-Venturino MN, Purslow MJ, Kini SR. Endometrial cells of the “lower uterine segment” (LUS) in cervical smears obtained by endocervical brushings: a source of potential diagnostic pitfall. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;12:2638.
  • 54
    Babkowski RC, Wilbur DC, Rutkowski MA, Facik MS, Bonfiglio TA. The effects of endocervical canal topography, tubal metaplasia, and high canal sampling on the cytologic presentation of nonneoplastic endocervical cells. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;105:40310.