A b s t r a c t
Some believe endocervical glandular atypia (EGA), purportedly composed of cells that are less atypical than cells of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS),The topic of endocervical glandular lesions with less atypia than adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) is extremely controversial. Some authors believe there are recognizable and reproducible glandular lesions of increasing atypia that are preneoplastic and culminate in AIS. Others believe that little evidence supports the existence of EGA, and still others remain undecided. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] There is no universally adopted nomenclature for these lesions. Various terms have been proposed, including endocervical glandular dysplasia, cervical intraepithelial glandular neoplasia, cervical glandular atypia, endocervical columnar cell intraepithelial neoplasia, and atypical endocervical hyperplasia. 2 ' 7,10,11,14,16 We prefer the term endocervical glandular atypia (EGA) as a term for a potential lesion with less atypia than AIS because its status as dysplastic has yet to be determined.One of the major problems associated with this topic is the lack of uniform criteria for AIS and, therefore, for EGA. Most authors agree that at one end of the spectrum is AIS, which is composed of indisputably malignant, noninvasive, glandular cells. However, the minimum degree of atypia that is sufficient to warrant the diagnosis of AIS is not established. The confusion this has created can easily be appreciated by studying the different cutoff points for AIS used by different authors. 26 At the other end of the spectrum is the lack of consensus for criteria that distinguish benign cellular changes from low-grade EGA. The lack of standardized minimum criteria for AIS and benign atypia has fueled the controversy over the existence of and histologic criteria of EGA. Some have chosen to split moderately atypical and markedly atypical noninvasive endocervical gland lesions into high-grade EGA (dysplasia) and AIS, while others have chosen to group them together as AIS. The latter group does not recognize the existence of high-grade dysplasia, while the former uses the morphologic spectrum as evidence to support its existence. The semantic 2 0 0