Obstetrics and gynecology · 2008
Factors influencing histologic confirmation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаResearch Support, N.I.H., IntramuralНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Castle Philip E, Cox J Thomas, Schiffman Mark, Wheeler Cosette M, Solomon Diane
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine the predictors of histologic confirmation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology occurring in follow-up of young women originally referred into a trial because of less severe cytology.
METHODS: We used enrollment HSIL cytology (N=411) as read by clinical center pathologists for women participating in the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). The primary outcome was histologic cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 and early cancer (n=195; 191 CIN 3 and four cancers) as diagnosed by the Pathology Quality Control Group during the 2-year duration of ALTS.
RESULTS: The 2-year absolute risk of CIN 3 or worse after an HSIL cytology was 47.4% (95% confidence interval 42.5-52.4%). The 2-year absolute risk of CIN 3 or worse was lowest (14.3%) for women who were human papillomavirus (HPV)-16-negative, had colposcopic impression of less than low-grade, and whose HSIL cytology as called by the clinical center was not also called HSIL or equivocal HSIL cytology by the Pathology Quality Control Group. The 2-year absolute risk of CIN 3 or worse was highest (82.4%) for women who were HPV16-positive, had colposcopic impression of low-grade or worse, and whose HSIL cytology also was called HSIL or equivocal HSIL cytology by the Pathology Quality Control Group.
CONCLUSION: Histologic confirmation of precancer among young women with HSIL cytology was more likely when other risk factors (eg, HPV16) for cervical precancer were present.
METHODS: We used enrollment HSIL cytology (N=411) as read by clinical center pathologists for women participating in the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). The primary outcome was histologic cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 and early cancer (n=195; 191 CIN 3 and four cancers) as diagnosed by the Pathology Quality Control Group during the 2-year duration of ALTS.
RESULTS: The 2-year absolute risk of CIN 3 or worse after an HSIL cytology was 47.4% (95% confidence interval 42.5-52.4%). The 2-year absolute risk of CIN 3 or worse was lowest (14.3%) for women who were human papillomavirus (HPV)-16-negative, had colposcopic impression of less than low-grade, and whose HSIL cytology as called by the clinical center was not also called HSIL or equivocal HSIL cytology by the Pathology Quality Control Group. The 2-year absolute risk of CIN 3 or worse was highest (82.4%) for women who were HPV16-positive, had colposcopic impression of low-grade or worse, and whose HSIL cytology also was called HSIL or equivocal HSIL cytology by the Pathology Quality Control Group.
CONCLUSION: Histologic confirmation of precancer among young women with HSIL cytology was more likely when other risk factors (eg, HPV16) for cervical precancer were present.