Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2013
Evaluation of endocervical canal in women with minimal cervical cytological abnormalities.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Goksedef B Pinar Cilesiz, Akbayir Ozgur, Numanoglu Ceyhun, Corbacioglu Aytul, Guraslan Hakan, Bakir Lale Vuslat, Kaya Onur, Yanik Gulden, Cetin Ahmet
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the endocervical canal curettage (ECC) results of patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or low-grade intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) and secondarily to explore the features of patients who are at greatest risk for endocervical involvement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 846 women who underwent ECC with ASC-US or LSIL on cervical cytology between January 2003 and April 2011. Records of demographic data and colposcopic impression were evaluated. Histopathological results of biopsies and ECC were classified into 2 categories as less than cervical intraepithelial lesion 2 (CIN 2) and CIN 2+ lesions for comparison. Multivariate analysis was performed using binary logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of ECC results.
RESULTS: CIN 1 lesions were detected in 8.9% of patients, and the rates of CIN 2 or 3 and invasive/microinvasive cancers in ECC were 3.8% and 0.7%, respectively. Cervical intraepithelial lesion 2 or worse lesions were detected in 1.6% (7/419) of the patients with normal colposcopic findings. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of CIN 2+ lesion in endocervical canal between the patients with or without satisfactory colposcopic examination (4.4% vs 4.1% p = .69). A total of 1.7% of the patients who did not have cervical biopsy and also 1.1% of the patients who had less than CIN 2 biopsy results were diagnosed with CIN 2+ lesion by ECC despite the satisfactory colposcopy. Only a positive biopsy result for dysplasia was found to be an independent factor for the detection of a dysplastic lesion in endocervical canal (odds ratio = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.01-0.35; p = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Endocervical canal curettage had minimal diagnostic utility for the detection of CIN 2 or worse lesions in women with ASC-US or LSIL smear result and normal colposcopic findings. In addition to this, the presence or absence of CIN 2+ lesions diagnosed by means of endocervical curettage was independent of a satisfactory or unsatisfactory colposcopic examination.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 846 women who underwent ECC with ASC-US or LSIL on cervical cytology between January 2003 and April 2011. Records of demographic data and colposcopic impression were evaluated. Histopathological results of biopsies and ECC were classified into 2 categories as less than cervical intraepithelial lesion 2 (CIN 2) and CIN 2+ lesions for comparison. Multivariate analysis was performed using binary logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of ECC results.
RESULTS: CIN 1 lesions were detected in 8.9% of patients, and the rates of CIN 2 or 3 and invasive/microinvasive cancers in ECC were 3.8% and 0.7%, respectively. Cervical intraepithelial lesion 2 or worse lesions were detected in 1.6% (7/419) of the patients with normal colposcopic findings. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of CIN 2+ lesion in endocervical canal between the patients with or without satisfactory colposcopic examination (4.4% vs 4.1% p = .69). A total of 1.7% of the patients who did not have cervical biopsy and also 1.1% of the patients who had less than CIN 2 biopsy results were diagnosed with CIN 2+ lesion by ECC despite the satisfactory colposcopy. Only a positive biopsy result for dysplasia was found to be an independent factor for the detection of a dysplastic lesion in endocervical canal (odds ratio = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.01-0.35; p = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Endocervical canal curettage had minimal diagnostic utility for the detection of CIN 2 or worse lesions in women with ASC-US or LSIL smear result and normal colposcopic findings. In addition to this, the presence or absence of CIN 2+ lesions diagnosed by means of endocervical curettage was independent of a satisfactory or unsatisfactory colposcopic examination.