Ma nagement of

Atypic al Glandular
Cells a nd
Adenoc arc inoma in Situ
Charles J. Dunton, MDa,b,*
KEYWORDS
 Adenocarcinoma in situ  Cervical cancer screening
 Cytology guidelines  Endometrial neoplasia
 Atypical glandular cells

Glandular abnormalities of the cervix continue to present clinicians with difficult

management decisions. Glandular abnormalities represent a small percentage of all
abnormal Pap smears.1 The rarity of this finding, coupled with a high underlying rate
of neoplasia, may lead to significant underdiagnosis and missed opportunities for
care. Additionally, clinicians fail to comply with published guidelines in the management of these abnormalities at a higher than desirable rate.2
This article highlights the definitions of glandular abnormalities, reviews current
published guidelines for clinical management, and discusses the underlying rates
of neoplasia associated with these cytology reports. It reviews proper follow-up of
patients found not to have neoplasia and current treatment options for patients who
have significant neoplasia. It also discusses the diagnosis of associated endometrial
lesions and the use of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing in the management
of glandular lesions of the lower genital tract.
DEFINITIONS OF ABNORMAL GLANDULAR CYTOLOGY

Glandular abnormalities are described as atypical glandular cells (specify endocervical,

endometrial or not otherwise specified), atypical glandular cells, favor neoplastic (specify endocervical cells or not otherwise specified).3 Additionally, separate categories of
endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and adenocarcinoma are reported.
The term atypical glandular cells (AGC) has replaced the previous term
atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS). The differentiation
a

Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Lankenau Hospital, 100 Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood,

PA 19096, USA
b
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jefferson Medical College, 100 Lancaster Avenue,
Wynnewood, PA 19096, USA
* Suite 661 MOB East, Lankenau Hospital, Wynnewood, PA 19096.
E-mail address: [email protected]
Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 623632
doi:10.1016/j.ogc.2008.09.002
0889-8545/08/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

obgyn.theclinics.com

624

Dunton

of favor reactive and probably neoplastic has been dropped from the terminology.
This change was made based on evidence that a high rate of underlying pathology
could still be seen in the favor reactive category. Changes were also made in terminology because of confusion of AGUS with atypical squamous cells of undetermined
significance (ASC-US).3
A cytologic finding of glandular lesion occurs in less than 0.5% of Pap smears.
However, the underlying significant neoplasia rate ranges from 9% to 50%. In some
studies, more than 10% of patients may have an underlying cancer.4,5 Studies have
shown that the reproducibility of AGC is difficult for pathologists.6
The most common neoplastic histologic finding in patients who have AGC is actually
squamous dysplasia. A significant number of patients will have AIS or adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Invasive squamous cell carcinoma and endometrial lesions are
also found. Other common findings, which are nonneoplastic, include adenosis,
polyps, inflammation, and reactive changes. Findings of upper genital tract neoplasia,
such as fallopian tube or ovarian carcinomas, have been reported. Therefore,
complete evaluation of patients presenting with glandular abnormalities may be
necessary in certain situations.
A recent review of a compilation of 24 studies demonstrated a 0.29% rate of glandular abnormalities in almost 2.4 million smears. Evaluation showed that 11.1% of
patients had high-grade squamous lesions, 2.9% had AIS, 1.4% had endometrial
hyperplasia, and 5.2% had malignancy. In patients who had malignancy, most were
endometrial carcinoma (57.6%), cervical adenocarcinoma (23.6%), and squamous
cell carcinoma of the cervix (5.4%). In these series of patients who had malignancy,
6.4% had an ovarian or fallopian tube primary carcinoma and other malignancies
were found 6.9% of the time.7 More significant clinical abnormalities occur in women
older than 40 who have glandular cytologic findings than in younger women. Therefore, the clinician should have a high index of suspicion in the management of older
women who have this finding.8
All modalities for the detection of glandular lesions lack sufficient sensitivity for
detection of lesions by themselves. Many women who have AIS have normal colposcopic examinations.9 Additionally, repeat cytology does not improve detection of disease.10 Limitations of testing may be due to the location of these lesions, which are in
gland crypts and may escape detection by sampling devices and visual methodology.
Therefore, multimodality testing is necessary to detect these lesions. Management
algorithms based on the 2006 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical
Pathology (ASCCP) Consensus Guidelines are available at www.asccp.org.
ATYPICAL GLANDULAR CELLS (FAVOR ENDOCERVICAL OR NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED)

Current management for this cytologic report includes colposcopy, directed biopsies,
endocervical curettage, and HPV DNA testing (Fig. 1). The relative rarity of this report
should not overburden clinicians in the management of these patients. A complete
workup is necessary because of significant findings during initial and subsequent evaluations. In women older than 35, and women of any age who have abnormal bleeding,
endometrial evaluation is also necessary. Women of any age at risk for endometrial
lesions (ie, polycystic ovarian disease, obesity) should also have evaluation for
endometrial pathology. After complete evaluation, depending on which studies are
quoted, 50% or more of patients will have a negative initial evaluation.11
Although HPV DNA testing has not been shown to be sensitive enough to triage
patients who have glandular abnormalities, it has been demonstrated that patients
who have an initial negative complete evaluation and are HPV DNA negative are at

Management of Atypical Glandular Cells

Fig. 1. Initial work-up of women who have AGC. (Reprinted from The Journal of Lower
Genital Tract Disease Vol. 11 Issue 4, with the permission of ASCCP American Society for
Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology 2007. No copies of the algorithms may be made without
the prior consent of ASCCP.)

low risk for neoplasia. The initial evaluation, however, is important to direct appropriate
follow-up. If patients have negative evaluations and are HPV DNA negative, recommendations are for a repeat cytology and HPV DNA test in 12 months.12 However, if
HPV DNA testing is positive and initial evaluation is negative, closer observation is
indicated because of a significant rate of undiagnosed neoplasia. Repeat testing
with cytology and HPV DNA testing is recommended at 6 months in this situation.
Complete evaluation is necessary if either is abnormal. If neoplasia is found, clinicians
should follow guidelines for treatment of histologic lesions (Fig. 2).11
ATYPICAL GLANDULAR CELLS (FAVOR ENDOMETRIAL)

If the pathologist interprets the abnormality as atypical endometrial cells, an endometrial

biopsy can be preformed first (see Fig. 1), Current recommendations also call for endocervical curettage, along with endometrial biopsy. However, if significant neoplasia is
not found, a complete cervical evaluation is necessary.11 Pathologic interpretation

Fig. 2. Subsequent management of women who have AGC. (Reprinted from The Journal of
Lower Genital Tract Disease Vol. 11 Issue 4, with the permission of ASCCP American Society
for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology 2007. No copies of the algorithms may be made without the prior consent of ASCCP.)

625

626

Dunton

may not be able to differentiate endocervical from endometrial abnormalities on a consistent basis.13 It would seem prudent if a patient is recalled for an endometrial biopsy to
perform colposcopy at the same time as the endometrial evaluation.
HPV DNA testing could also be preformed. However, endometrial neoplasia is
typically HPV DNA negative, which is why complete evaluation for AGC is necessary
and another reason why triage with HPV DNA testing cannot be used.
Ultrasound evaluation for atypical endometrial cells has not been investigated.
Endometrial thickness on ultrasound has proved to be a valuable tool if office endometrial biopsy cannot be performed. Thickness of less than 5 mm has a high negative
predictive value in postmenopausal women.14 It is logical to use this modality for
endometrial evaluation if necessary.
If endometrial neoplasia is discovered, it should be treated according to standard
protocols for endometrial lesions. If endometrial biopsy or ultrasound does not reveal
neoplasia and abnormal bleeding is persistent, a dilation and curettage (D&C) and
hysteroscopy may be necessary.
ATYPICAL GLANDULAR CELLS (FAVOR NEOPLASIA) OR ADENOCARCINOMA IN SITU

A report of AGC favor neoplasia carries a higher underlying neoplasia rate. Initial
evaluation is the same as AGC not otherwise specified. If a significant lesion is found,
treatment should be directed by histology. However, if no lesions or only cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 are found, it is necessary to perform an excision biopsy.
The relative insensitivity of testing to determine underlying lesions with this
diagnosis necessitates excision biopsy.11 In a recent study, AGC favoring neoplasia
had a statistically significant higher prevalence of AIS and malignancy compared
with AGC alone. The underlying rates of low- or high-grade CIN showed no
difference.7
The management of a cytology specimen showing AIS is the same as that of AGC
favor neoplasia. With the specimen showing this degree of abnormality, the underlying
rate of cancer is higher. Attempts to introduce the term glandular dysplasia with
subdivisions of mild, moderate, and severe have not met with widespread acceptance. If the pathologic diagnosis of glandular dysplasia is encountered, secondary
pathologic review may be indicated.15
ADENOCARCINOMA

Occasionally, clinicians will be presented with a report stating that adenocarcinoma

present. If an invasive lesion is not found in the endometrium or in the cervix, it is
prudent to investigate the upper genital tract. Most series reviewing glandular abnormalities of the cervix will report fallopian tube and ovarian malignancies among the
diagnoses. Other malignancies, such as colonic or pancreatic disease, although
rare, have been reported.5
If excisional biopsy and D&C/hysteroscopy are negative, ultrasound imaging of the
pelvis should be performed. If clinical suspicion based on cytology is confirmed by
a second review, it may be necessary to perform abdominal imaging such as a CT
scan. CA125 testing may also be necessary. However, rarely do clinical situations require this type of diagnostic workup.16
OTHER ATYPICAL GLANDULAR CELLS

Benign-appearing endometrial cells, endometrial stromal cells, or histiocytes in

asymptomatic premenopausal woman are not associated with significant neoplasia.
Therefore, further evaluation of these findings has not been recommended.11

Management of Atypical Glandular Cells

In postmenopausal patients, endometrial evaluation is suggested for a cytologic

finding of endometrial cells, regardless of symptoms. An underlying rate of hyperplasia
or malignancy has been found in up to 7% of these cases.17
Greenspan and colleagues18 have published an excellent review of this topic. The
investigators note that most women who have endometrial cells on Pap tests have
benign findings. However, up to 40% may have polyps. The incidence of hyperplasia
has been reported to be as high as 20%, whereas the incidence of atypical
hyperplasia has been reported to be 8%, and that of carcinoma, 15%.
Thrall and colleagues19 reported their experiences in patients who had endometrial
cancer and the preceding cytology. In women who had a diagnosis of endometrial
cancer, 38% had a glandular abnormality (AGC or adenocarcinoma) preceding the
diagnosis and an additional 5.5% had a record of benign-appearing endometrial cells.
Patients who have uterine papillary serous carcinoma have a high rate of positive
cervical cytology.20 For patients who have had a hysterectomy, a cytologic report of
benign glandular cells has not been shown to have significance and no further evaluation is recommended.11,18

HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TESTING

Perhaps the most significant change in the evaluation of glandular abnormalities is the
addition of HPV DNA testing. Several studies have a documented sensitivity for HPV
DNA triage ranging from 85% to 95%.2124 The 2006 ASCCP Consensus conference
proposed that, given the underlying significant rate of disease, this sensitivity was not
high enough to allow for appropriate triage. Therefore, a negative HPV DNA test with
a finding of AGC does not obviate the need for complete evaluation, including directed
biopsies and endometrial evaluation if necessary.
The value of HPV DNA testing with this cytologic finding relates to subsequent
evaluation. Clinicians can be assured that if, after a comprehensive evaluation, no
significant lesions are found, patients who have negative HPV DNA testing are at
extremely low risk for neoplasia. Fetterman and colleagues12 reported on more than
1100 patients who had AGC Pap smears and HPV DNA results. After initial evaluation,
396 women who were HPV DNA negative were followed for 12 months or more. None
of these women were found to have a diagnosis of high-grade neoplasia in subsequent evaluations. Initial evaluation did reveal neoplasia in some women who were
HPV DNA negative. An important finding from this study was that women who had
a negative initial evaluation and were HPV DNA positive had a 24% risk for having
high-grade CIN or AIS in the follow-up.
In women who are followed after initial evaluation, repeat colposcopy, biopsy, and
endocervical curettage is recommended if either cytology or HPV DNA testing is positive. Women who are HPV DNA negative can be followed by routine screening. If HPV
DNA testing is not available, the 2001 ASCCP guidelines recommendation for four
negative cytologies over 2 years has continued.11

PREGNANCY

Evaluation of AGC in the pregnant patient is no different than in the nonpregnant

patient except that endocervical curettage is contraindicated. Treatment of any neoplasia would be managed according to the guidelines, with consideration for severity
of the lesion and the gestational age. In general, only invasive disease needs treatment
during pregnancy. AIS and CIN 3 can be treated in the postpartum period.25

627

628

Dunton

ADOLESCENTS

Little data are available on the evaluation of adolescents who have AGC. In one study,
only 8 of 1678 adolescent women aged 14 to 21 had a diagnosis of AGC. Current
recommendations for management of adolescents are no different than those for older
women.26
CYTOLOGY PREPARATIONS

Some studies have compared liquid-based preparations with conventional smears.

Data suggest that liquid-based techniques may have increased sensitivity for detection of glandular lesions.27,28 Attempts have been made with immunohistochemical
preparations such as p16, Ki-67, and MN antigen to improve the accuracy of cytology
with glandular lesions. At the current time, these remain research tools.2932
HISTOLOGY

AIS of the cervix is a distinct histologic entity. Pathologic findings demonstrate glands
showing stratification, nuclear abnormalities, and lack of invasion of the basement
membrane. The concept of microinvasion for adenocarcinoma has been proposed.
This area is controversial and review of pathologic material by the clinician would
be necessary to treat patients properly.33 If invasion is seen, referral to a gynecologic
oncologist is appropriate.
If AIS is diagnosed on a cervical biopsy, excisional biopsy is necessary to rule out an
invasive lesion. If a diagnosis of AIS is confirmed on excision biopsy, several options
exist, based on desire for future fertility. Several articles have described conservative
management in patients desiring future child bearing if margins are free of neoplasia
on excisional specimens.3436 Studies have also shown that if margins are involved,
the risk exists for persistent disease or invasive cancer. Most experts recommend
repeat excision if margins are positive.37,38
In patients who are not interested in child bearing, the consensus is that hysterectomy is indicated for AIS. Simple hysterectomy is the treatment of choice.39
Recently, a series of 42 women undergoing conservative treatment of AIS were
described. Follow-up consisted of Pap smear biopsy and HPV testing at 6-month
intervals. Persistent or recurrent disease was found in 19% of patients who had free
margins. Of patients who had involved margins on initial excision, 65% had disease.
In this study, HPV DNA testing after treatment significantly predicted disease persistence or clearance. The investigators reported 100% negative predictive value if two
Pap smears and HPV tests were negative.40
If the patient elects not to undergo hysterectomy, long-term follow-up is suggested.
In the authors opinion, this follow-up would consist of cytology and HPV DNA testing.
Conservative therapy should not be offered unless margins are free of disease.41
Data are not available on long-term follow-up of women treated after hysterectomy
for AIS. However, because AIS is a high-grade cancer precursor and recent publications have highlighted the increased risk for neoplasia and women treated for CIN, it
would seem prudent to continue long-term surveillance.42
TREATMENT

In the management of glandular lesions, the term excisional biopsy is used. Debate
continues concerning the use of thermal techniques, such as loop excision or laser, in
the diagnosis of glandular abnormalities.43 In the past, cold knife cone biopsy was
recommended. Several studies showed a higher recurrence rate and higher margin

Management of Atypical Glandular Cells

positivity than with thermal techniques. However, other trials did not show a difference
between the techniques.44,45 Consensus has been reached on evidence that an intact
specimen with interpretable margins is key to direct therapy in glandular abnormalities. Therefore, clinicians should choose the modality they feel will most likely yield
the best pathologic specimen. Endocervical curettage is recommended at the time
of excisional biopsy in suspected glandular abnormalities. Data suggest that this is
predictive of residual disease.46
VACCINATION

Glandular neoplasia has increased over the last several decades. Proportions of
cervical cancers that are now adenocarcinoma are higher than previously, most likely
because of increased detection and elimination of squamous lesions by screening
programs. However, beside the relative increase in adenocarcinoma, the number
most likely due to HPV also appears to have increased.47 Currently available HPV
vaccines prevent infection with HPV 16 and 18. Adenocarcinoma and AIS appear to
be related to HPV 18 in most cases.48 Data from vaccine trials have shown prevention
of AIS and squamous lesions. Widespread vaccination should decrease glandular
neoplasia.49
SUMMARY

Glandular abnormalities of the cervix remain a difficult clinical problem. It is a challenge

for the clinician to manage and follow this unusual cytologic finding properly. The rarity
and high underlying neoplasia rate make proper management important. Full evaluation, including colposcopy, directed biopsies, endocervical curettage, and endometrial evaluation, are necessary as the initial management step. Subsequent
evaluations can be shortened in HPV DNAnegative patients. Close surveillance is
necessary even if initial evaluation is negative in HPV DNApositive patients. Excisional biopsy is necessary in many cases, especially if cytologic results favored
neoplasia or AIS. Conservative therapy is possible for women desiring child bearing
if invasion is not detected and a complete excision of glandular abnormalities has
been performed. It is to be hoped that new guidelines will simplify management for
clinicians and aid them in the detection of neoplasia with these diagnoses.
REFERENCES

1. Sharpless KE, Peter F, Schnatz PF, et al. Dysplasia associated with atypical
glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:494500.
2. Sharpless KE, Schnatz PF, Mandavilli S, et al. Lack of adherence to practice
guidelines for women with atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet
Gynecol 2005;105:5016 [erratum appears in Obstet Gynecol 2005;105(6):1495].
3. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda system: terminology
for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287(16):21149.
4. Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, et al. 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;128:12249.
5. DeSimone CP, Day ME, Tovar MM, et al. Rate of pathology from atypical glandular
cell Pap tests classified by the Bethesda 2001 nomenclature. Obstet Gynecol
2006;107:128591.

629

630

Dunton

6. Confortini M, Di Bonito L, Carozzi F, et al. GISCi Working Group for Cervical

Cytology. Interlaboratory reproducibility of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance: a national survey. Cytopathology 2006;17(6):35360.
7. Schnatz PF, Guile M, OSullivan DM, et al. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107(3):7018.
8. Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cohen JM, et al. Clinical significance of atypical glandular
cells of undetermined significance in postmenopausal women. Cancer 2001;93:
17.
9. Cullimore JE, Luesley DM, Rollason TP, et al. A prospective study of conization of
the cervix in the management of cervical intraepithelial glandular neoplasia
(CIGN): a preliminary report. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:3148.
10. Kim TJ, Kim HS, Park CT, et al. Clinical evaluation of follow-up methods and
results of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS) detected
on cervicovaginal Pap smears. Gynecol Oncol 2000;73:2928.
11. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. For the 2006 ASCCP-Sponsored
Consensus Conference. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of
women with abnormal cervical screening tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2007;
11(4):20122.
12. Fetterman B, Shaber R, Pawlick G, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing in
routine clinical practice for prediction of underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/31 at initial evaluation and in follow-up of women with atypical glandular cell
Papanicolaou tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2006;10(3):1789.
13. Chhieng DC, Cohen J, Cangiarella JF. Clinical implications of atypical glandular
cells of undetermined significance, favor endometrial origin. Cancer (Cancer
Cytopathol) 2001;93:3516.
14. Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D, Domali E, et al. A thin and regular
endometrium on ultrasound is very unlikely in patients with endometrial
malignancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29(6):6749.
15. Ioffe OB, Sagae S, Moritani S, et al. Symposium part 3: should pathologists
diagnose endocervical preneoplastic lesions less than adenocarcinoma in
situ? Int J Gynecol Pathol 2003;22:1821.
16. Wright JD, Horowitz NS, Rader JS. Primary peritoneal carcinoma presenting as
adenocarcinoma on a Pap smear. A case report. J Reprod Med 2002;47(11):
9335.
17. Siebers AG, Verbeek AL, Massuer LF, et al. Normal appearing endometrial cells
in cervical smears of asymptomatic postmenopausal women have predictive
value for significant endometrial pathology. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16:
106974.
18. Greenspan DL, Cardillo M, Davey DD, et al. Endometrial cells in cervical
cytology: review of cytological features and clinical assessment. J Low Genit
Tract Dis 2006;10(2):11122.
19. Thrall M, Kjeldahl K, Gulbahce HE, et al. Liquid-based Papanicolaou test
(SurePath) interpretations before histologic diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasias and carcinomas: study of 272 cases classified by the 2001 Bethesda
system. Cancer 2007;111(4):21723.
20. Park JY, Kim HS, Hong SR, et al. Cytologic findings of cervicovaginal smears in
women with uterine papillary serous carcinoma. J Korean Med Sci 2005;20(1):
937.
21. Derchain SF, Rabelo-Santos SH, Sarian LO, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA
detection and histological findings in women referred for atypical glandular cells
or adenocarcinoma in situ in their Pap smears. Gynecol Oncol 2004;95:61823.

Management of Atypical Glandular Cells

22. Diaz-Montes TP, Farinola MA, Zahurak ML, et al. Clinical utility of atypical glandular cells (AGC) classification: cytohistologic comparison and relationship to HPV
results. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:36671.
23. Saqi A, Gupta PK, Erroll M, et al. High-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing:
a marker for atypical glandular cells. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34(3):2359.
24. de Oliveira ER, Derchain SF, Sarian LO, et al. Prediction of high-grade cervical
disease with human papillomavirus detection in women with glandular and
squamous cytologic abnormalities. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16(3):105562.
25. Hunter MI, Monk BJ, Tewari KS. Cervical neoplasia in pregnancy. Part 1: screening and management of preinvasive disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199(1):
39.
26. Case AS, Rocconi RP, Straughn JM, et al. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in
adolescent women: incidence and treatment outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2006;
108(6):136974.
27. Ramsaroop R, Chu I. Accuracy of diagnosis of atypical glandular cellsConventional and ThinPrep. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34(9):6149.
28. Lee KR, Darragh TM, Joste NE, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined
significance (AGUS): interobserver reproducibility in cervical smears and
corresponding thin-layer preparations. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:96102.
29. Chena S, Yanga S, Chub T, et al. Which test is a better strategy to determine the
outcome of atypical glandular cell-categorized Pap smears? Immunocytochemical p16INK4A expression or human papillomavirus testa retrospective cohort
study. Gynecol Oncol 2005;99:57884.
30. Keating JT, Ince T, Crum CP. Surrogate biomarkers of HPV infection in cervical
neoplasia screening and diagnosis. Adv Anat Pathol 2001;8(2):8392.
31. Liao SY, Stanbridge EJ. Expression of MN/CA9 protein in Papanicolaou smears
containing atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance is a diagnostic
biomarker of cervical dysplasia and neoplasia. Cancer 2000;88:110821.
32. Boon ME, Vinkestein A, van Binsbergen-Ingelse A, et al. Significance of MiB-1
staining in smears with atypical glandular cells. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;31:7782.
33. Zaino RJ. Symposium part I: adenocarcinoma in situ, glandular dysplasia, and
early invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2002;
21(4):31426.
34. Soutter WP, Haidopoulos D, Gornall RJ, et al. Is conservative treatment for
adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix safe? BJOG 2001;108:11849.
35. Shin CH, Schorge JO, Lee KR, et al. Conservative management of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 2000;79:610.
36. McHale MT, Le TD, Burger RA, et al. Fertility sparing treatment for in situ and early
invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98(5 Pt 1):72631.
37. Jakus S, Edmonds P, Dunton CJ, et al. Margin status and excision of cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2000;55(8):5207.
38. Hopkins MP. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervixthe margins must be clear.
Gynecol Oncol 2000;79:45.
39. Krivak TC, Rose GS, McBroom JW, et al. Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ:
a systematic review of therapeutic options and predictors of persistent or
recurrent disease. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001;56(9):56775.
40. Costa S, Negri G, Sideri M, et al. Human papillomavirus (HPV) test and PAP
smear as predictors of outcome in conservatively treated adenocarcinoma in
situ (AIS) of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol 2007;106:1706.
41. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. For the 2006 American Society for
Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology-sponsored Consensus Conference. 2006

631

632

Dunton

42.

43.

44.

45.
46.
47.

48.

49.

consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial

neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2007;11(4):22339.
Hwang DM, Lickrish GM, Chapman W, et al. Long-term surveillance is required
for all women treated for cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. J Low Genit Tract
Dis 2004;8:12531.
Miroshnichenko GM, Parva M, Holtz DO, et al. Interpretability of excisional
biopsies of the cervix: cone biopsy and loop excision. J Low Genit Tract Dis
2008;2:15279.
Bryson P, Stulberg R, Shepherd L, et al. Is electrosurgical loop excision with
negative margins sufficient treatment for cervical ACIS? Gynecol Oncol 2004;
93:4658.
Andersen ES, Nielsen K. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: a prospective
study of conization as definitive treatment. Gynecol Oncol 2002;86:3659.
Lea JS, Shin CH, Sheets EE, et al. Endocervical curettage at conization to predict
residual cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Gynecol Oncol 2002;87:12932.
Wang SS, Sherman ME, Hildesheim A, et al. Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in
the United States for 19762000. Cancer 2004;100:103544.
Bulk S, Berkhof J, Bulkmans NW, et al. Preferential risk of HPV16 for squamous
cell carcinoma and of HPV18 for adenocarcinoma of the cervix compared to
women with normal cytology in The Netherlands. Br J Cancer 2006;94:1715.
Ault KA. Vaccines for the prevention of human papillomavirus and associated
gynecologic diseases: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2006;61(6 Suppl 1):
S2631.