Response to the Letters from W. Kühn et al. and H. Griesser, K. Marquardt and B. Jordan on “Comments to the Publication of Munich Nomenclature III by the Cytology Coordination Conference” (Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2014; 74: 242–243)

The compilation of a new cytology nomenclature represents an important, long overdue step. It is an issue which the cytology societies have been discussing for years. When he was drawing up the agenda for the S3 Guideline on the Prevention of Cervical Cancer, the chairman of the S3 Guideline pointed out that an update of the Munich II Nomenclature was urgently needed, to allow – among other things – the results of international studies to be adapted to a German context. The study group developing the new Guideline agreed with this recommendation, incorporated it in its PICO questions, and requested the members of cytology societies to modernize the cytology nomenclature as quickly as possible. After P. H. reported about the current state of affairs at the board meeting of the DGGG [German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics] on November 9, 2012, the DGGG also endorsed the recommendation supporting a revision of the Munich Nomenclature.