The history of ‘The Bethesda System' for reporting cervical cytology goes back almost 3 decades. This terminology and the process that created it have had a profound impact on the practice of cervical cytology for laboratorians and clinicians alike. The Bethesda conferences and their ensuing output have also set the stage for standardization of terminology across multiple organ systems, including both cytology and histology, have initiated significant research in the biology and cost-effective management for human papillomavirus-associated anogenital lesions, and, finally, have fostered worldwide unification of clinical management for these lesions. Herein, we summarize the process and rationale by which updates were made to the terminology in 2014 and outline the contents of the new, third edition of the Bethesda atlas and corresponding website.

Keywords:
The Bethesda System, Bethesda atlas, Pap test, Cervical cytology, Reporting
1.
Solomon D: Foreword; in Nayar R, Wilbur DC (eds): The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes, ed 3. New York, Springer 2015.
2.
National Cancer Institute Workshop: The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. JAMA 1989;262:931-934.
3.
Kurman RJ, Solomon D (eds): The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes for Terminology and Specimen Adequacy. New York, Springer, 1994.
4.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al: The Bethesda System 2001: terminology for reporting the results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-2119.
5.
Solomon D, Nayar R (eds): The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes, ed 2. New York, Springer, 2004.
6.
Sherman ME, Dasgupta A, Schiffman M, Nayar R, Solomon D: The Bethesda Interobserver Reproducibility Study (BIRST): a web-based assessment of the Bethesda 2001 System for classifying cervical cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2007;111:15-25.
7.
National Cancer Institute, American Society of Cytopathology: Bethesda System Website Atlas. http://nih.techriver.net/ (accessed December 17, 2014).
8.
Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilber DC, Colgan TJ, Styler 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.
9.
Schiffman M, Adrianza ME: ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study: design, methods and characteristics of trial participants. Acta Cytol 2000;44:726-742.
10.
Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ: 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-2129.
11.
Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al: 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:346-355.
12.
Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al: 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17(5 suppl 1):S1-S27.
13.
Ali SZ, Cibas ES (eds): The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. New York, Springer, 2010.
14.
Layfield LJ, Pitman MB, DeMay RM, et al: Pancreaticobiliary tract cytology: journey toward ‘Bethesda' style guidelines from the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology. Cytojournal 2014;11:18.
15.
Rosenthal D, Wojcik E: The quest for standardization of urine cytology reporting - the evolution of the Paris system. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2014;3:II-III.
16.
Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox JT, et al: The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization Project for HPV-Associated Lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012;136:1266-1297.
17.
Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox JT, et al: The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization Project for HPV-Associated Lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2012;16:205-242.
18.
Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox JT, et al: The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization Project for HPV-Associated Lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2013;32:76-115.
19.
Stoler M, Bergeron C, Colgan TJ, et al: Epithelial tumours; in Kurman RJ, Carcangiu ML, Herrington CS, Young RH (eds): Tumours of the Uterine Cervix: WHO Classification of Tumours of Female Reproductive Organs, ed 4. Lyon, IARC Press, 2014, chapt 7, pp 172-198.
20.
Castle PE, Sideri M, Jeronimo J, Solomon D, Schiffman M: Risk assessment to guide the prevention of cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:356.e1-e6.
21.
Nayar R, Wilbur DC (eds): The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes, ed 3. New York, Springer, 2015.
22.
Stoler MH, Schiffman M: Interobserver variability of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001;285:1500-1505.
23.
American Society of Cytopathology: Cytopathology education and resources. http://www.cytopathology.org/cytopathology-education-2/ (accessed December 18, 2014).
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.