An assessment of gynecological cytology screening practices among health care providers nationwide.

CONTEXT: The Michigan Public Health Institute and the Michigan Cancer Consortium's Cervical Cancer Committee conducted a national survey of health care providers, thanks to funding from the Centers for Disease Control Cooperative Agreement 5U47CI000743-02. Papanicolaou test screening practices were examined, emphasizing the relationship between clinical and laboratory practices. This survey found differing screening practices among providers of women's health care. OBJECTIVES: To collect information from family medicine practitioners, women's nurse practitioners, obstetricians and gynecologists, and certified nurse-midwives on Papanicolaou and human papillomavirus testing; to discuss how those practices align with current cytology screening and follow-up recommendations from professional organizations (US Preventive Services Task Force, American Cancer Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and American Society for Colposcopy, and Cervical Pathology); and ultimately, to make recommendations aimed at standardizing practice performance. DESIGN: This survey was conducted in part to examine clinicians' practices and their perceptions of laboratory performance, to evaluate items that are known to enhance quality of care, and to examine factors that may prohibit universal implementation of best standards of care. The survey used a self-administered questionnaire, distributed to 9366 clinicians, with 1601 (17.1%) completed surveys. RESULTS: This assessment shows a clear lack of consensus among practitioners in performing Papanicolaou testing. It demonstrates how differently patients are tested, based on the providers' screening practices, and demonstrates specific cervical cancer screening practice disparities between and among the 4 provider groups, both in Papanicolaou testing and in the use of human papillomavirus testing. CONCLUSION: A unified mandate for screening is needed to standardize screening practices.

The 2001 Bethesda System terminology.

The 2001 Bethesda System for reporting cervical or vaginal cytologic diagnoses is an incremental change in the uniform terminology introduced in 1988 and revised in 1991. The 2001 Bethesda System includes specific statements about specimen adequacy, general categorization, and interpretation and results. In the adequacy category, "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" are retained, but "satisfactory but limited by" is eliminated. The new category of "atypical squamous cells" (ASC) replaces the category of "atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance" (ASCUS) and is divided into qualifiers of (1) ASC of "undetermined significance" (ASC-US) and (2) "cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)," or (ASC-H). The categories of ASCUS, "favor reactive" and "favor neoplasia" are eliminated. The terminology for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs) and HSILs remains unchanged. The category of "atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance" (AGUS) is eliminated to avoid confusion with ASCUS and is replaced by the term "atypical glandular cells" (AGC), with attempts to identify whether the origin of the cells is endometrial, endocervical, or unqualified. "Endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ" and "AGC, favor neoplastic" are included as separate AGC categories. The presence of normal or abnormal endometrial cells is to be reported in women who are at least 40 years of age. Educational notes and comments on ancillary testing may be added as appropriate.