Results of Cervical Cytology the 2001 Bethesda System: Terminology For
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The 2001 Bethesda System: Terminology for Reporting Results of Cervical Cytology Diane Solomon; Diane Davey; Robert Kurman; et al. Online article and related content current as of February 17, 2009. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2114-2119 (doi:10.1001/jama.287.16.2114) http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/16/2114 Correction Contact me if this article is corrected. Citations This article has been cited 529 times. Contact me when this article is cited. Related Articles published in 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Cervical the same issue Cytological Abnormalities Thomas C. Wright, Jr et al. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2120. New Bethesda Terminology and Evidence-Based Management Guidelines for Cervical Cytology Findings Mark H. Stoler. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2140. April 24, 2002 JAMA. 2002;287(16):2153. Subscribe Email Alerts http://jama.com/subscribe http://jamaarchives.com/alerts Permissions Reprints/E-prints [email protected] [email protected] http://pubs.ama-assn.org/misc/permissions.dtl Downloaded from www.jama.com at HSE: Health Service Executive (Ireland) on February 17, 2009 CONSENSUS STATEMENT The 2001 Bethesda System Terminology for Reporting Results of Cervical Cytology Diane Solomon, MD Objectives The Bethesda 2001 Workshop was convened to evaluate and update Diane Davey, MD the 1991 Bethesda System terminology for reporting the results of cervical cytology. A primary objective was to develop a new approach to broaden participation in the Robert Kurman, MD consensus process. Ann Moriarty, MD Participants Forum groups composed of 6 to 10 individuals were responsible for Dennis O’Connor, MD developing recommendations for discussion at the workshop. Each forum group in- cluded at least 1 cytopathologist, cytotechnologist, clinician, and international repre- Marianne Prey, MD sentative to ensure a broad range of views and interests. More than 400 cytopatholo- Stephen Raab, MD gists, cytotechnologists, histopathologists, family practitioners, gynecologists, public health physicians, epidemiologists, patient advocates, and attorneys participated in the Mark Sherman, MD workshop, which was convened by the National Cancer Institute and cosponsored by David Wilbur, MD 44 professional societies. More than 20 countries were represented. Thomas Wright, Jr, MD Evidence Literature review, expert opinion, and input from an Internet bulletin board were all considered in developing recommendations. The strength of evidence of the Nancy Young, MD scientific data was considered of paramount importance. for the Forum Group Members and Consensus Process Bethesda 2001 was a year-long iterative review process. An the Bethesda 2001 Workshop Internet bulletin board was used for discussion of issues and drafts of recommenda- BACKGROUND tions. More than 1000 comments were posted to the bulletin board over the course of 6 months. The Bethesda Workshop, held April 30-May 2, 2001, was open to the The Bethesda System for reporting the public. Postworkshop recommendations were posted on the bulletin board for a last results of cervical cytology was devel- round of critical review prior to finalizing the terminology. oped as a uniform system of terminol- ogy that would provide clear guidance Conclusions Bethesda 2001 was developed with broad participation in the consen- 1 sus process. The 2001 Bethesda System terminology reflects important advances in for clinical management. The first biological understanding of cervical neoplasia and cervical screening technology. workshop was held in 1988, to reduce JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119 www.jama.com widespread confusion among labora- tories and clinicians created by the use tation.3 Currently, more than 90% of US considered an opportune time to re- of multiple classification systems and laboratories use some form of the 1991 evaluate the Bethesda System. inconsistently defined numerical grad- Bethesda System in reporting cervical cy- ing conventions. tology.4 With the increased utilization Bethesda 2001 Process The most important contribution of of new technologies and recent find- Eight months prior to the Bethesda the Bethesda System was the creation of ings from research studies, 2001 was 2001 Workshop, 9 forum groups (listed a standardized framework for labora- tory reports that included a descriptive Author Affiliations: Division of Cancer Prevention, Na- Financial Disclosure: Dr Wright was the principal in- diagnosis and an evaluation of speci- tional Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md (Dr Solomon); De- vestigator of the clinical trials investigating HPV DNA partment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Uni- testing and liquid-based cytology funded by Digene men adequacy. While not everyone versity of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington (Dr Corp and Cytyc Corp via formal grants to Columbia agreed with every detail of that initial ef- Davey); Departments of Gynecology and Obstetrics and University. Dr Wright has no financial or equity inter- fort, the recommendations of the 1988 Pathology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Md (Dr est in, ongoing consultancy with, or membership on Kurman); AmeriPath Indiana, Indianapolis (Dr Mori- the scientific advisory board of Digene Corp, which workshop received widespread accep- arty); Clinical Pathology Associates, Louisville, Ky (Dr makes the only FDA-approved HPV DNA test in the tance in practice.2 A second workshop O’Connor); Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, St Louis, United States. Dr Wright currently serves on the speak- Mo (Dr Prey); Department of Pathology, Allegheny Hos- er’s bureau of Cytyc Corp and Tripath Inc, which make was held in 1991 to modify the Bethesda pital, Pittsburgh, Pa (Dr Raab); Division of Cancer Epi- liquid-based cytology test kits. System based on actual laboratory and demiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Forum Group Members are listed at the end of this Bethesda, Md (Dr Sherman); Department of Pathol- article. clinical experience after its implemen- ogy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (Dr Wilbur); Corresponding Author and Reprints: Diane Department of Pathology, Columbia University, New Solomon, MD, EPN Room 2130, 6130 Executive See also pp 2120 and 2140. York, NY (Dr Wright); and Department of Pathology, Blvd, Bethesda, MD 20892 (e-mail: ds87v@nih Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pa (Dr Young). .gov). 2114 JAMA, April 24, 2002—Vol 287, No. 16 (Reprinted) ©2002 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Downloaded from www.jama.com at HSE: Health Service Executive (Ireland) on February 17, 2009 THE 2001 BETHESDA SYSTEM at the end of the article) were estab- lished to draft recommendations for BOX 1. Bethesda 2001 Workshop Cosponsors modifying the Bethesda System. A American Cancer Society* primary objective was to broaden American College Health Association* participation by using the Internet American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists* in the premeeting development pro- American Social Health Association* cess. A dedicated Web site (http:// American Society of Cytopathology* * bethesda2001.cancer.gov) with an elec- American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology * tronic bulletin board was established to American Society of Clinical Pathologists American Society for Cytotechnology* seek input and critiques of draft rec- Asociacio´n Mexicana de Patologos ommendations. In total, more than Association of Reproductive Health Professionals 1000 individual comments were posted Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses to the bulletin board. Australian Society of Cytology The workshop was held April 30- British Society for Clinical Cytology May 2, 2001, with more than 400 par- Canadian Society of Cytology – Socie´te´ Canadienne de Cytologie* ticipants, including pathologists, cyto- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention technologists, clinicians, and patient Chinese Society of Cytopathology advocates. Forty-four professional so- College of American Pathologists* cieties, representing more than 20 coun- Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨ r Zytologie Food and Drug Administration tries, were cosponsors (BOX 1). More Gynecologic Oncology Group, ACOG* than 20 national and international so- Health Care Financing Administration cieties have endorsed the 2001 Bethesda International Academy of Cytology System at this writing. The following International Society of Gynecological Pathologists summary highlights the most clinically Irish Association for Clinical Cytology* relevant changes to the Bethesda Sys- Japanese Society of Clinical Cytology tem (BOX 2); a more detailed text will Korean Society for Cytopathology be published in specialty journals. Magyar Onkolo´gusok Ta´rsasa´ga-Cytodiagnosztikai Sectio National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards THE 2001 BETHESDA SYSTEM Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health Specimen Adequacy O¨ esterreichische Gesellschaft fuer Zytologie* Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology* Evaluation of specimen adequacy is Planned Parenthood Federation considered by many to be the single Romanian Society of Cytology most important quality assurance com- Sociedad Argentina de Citologia ponent of the Bethesda System. Origi- Sociedad Chilena de Citologia nally, in 1988, specimen adequacy was Sociedad Espan˜ ola de Citologia* categorized as “satisfactory,” “less than Sociedad Peruana de Citologia optimal” (renamed “satisfactory but Sociedade Boliviana de Citologia limited by...”in1991), or “unsatis- Sociedade Brasileira de Citopatologia factory.” The middle category was used Societa` Italiana di Anatomia Patologica e Citopatologia