Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2011
To treat or not to treat; the clinical dilemma of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US).
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
de Bie Roosmarie P, Massuger Leon F A G, van Dongen Roel A J M, Snijders Marc P M L, Bulten Johan, Melchers Willem J G, Bekkers Ruud L M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Management of patients diagnosed on cervical smears with twice consecutively atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) remains a clinical dilemma. We describe a follow-up of aggressive vs. less aggressive colposcopic treatment in order to determine which treatment is preferable.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of 10 years.
SETTING: Two hospitals in The Netherlands.
POPULATION: Women referred for primary colposcopy with two consecutive ASC-US smears (n=230) to either one of the two hospitals.
METHODS: In one hospital, patients underwent direct loop excision of all colposcopically detected abnormalities, even if not suspected for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN; aggressive strategy; n=118). In the other hospital, a less aggressive policy was followed when low-grade CIN lesions were suspected at colposcopy (less aggressive strategy; n=112).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of loop excisions, detection of CIN lesions and cytological follow-up of both groups.
RESULTS: Less aggressive management resulted in less loop excisions (p<0.001). At initial colposcopy, the aggressive group showed a 10-fold incidence of histologically detected CIN lesions compared with the less aggressive group (1.8 vs. 19.5%). During 10 years of follow-up, both groups showed the same percentages of CIN lesions (8.1 vs. 8.4%). Aggressive management resulted in faster normalization of cervical smears (p<0.001). However, at final follow-up, there was no statistical difference in the percentage of normalization of cervical smears between both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive and less aggressive colposcopic strategies are equally safe and show good clinical outcomes. Treatment decisions, however, must be adjusted to women's individual demands.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of 10 years.
SETTING: Two hospitals in The Netherlands.
POPULATION: Women referred for primary colposcopy with two consecutive ASC-US smears (n=230) to either one of the two hospitals.
METHODS: In one hospital, patients underwent direct loop excision of all colposcopically detected abnormalities, even if not suspected for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN; aggressive strategy; n=118). In the other hospital, a less aggressive policy was followed when low-grade CIN lesions were suspected at colposcopy (less aggressive strategy; n=112).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of loop excisions, detection of CIN lesions and cytological follow-up of both groups.
RESULTS: Less aggressive management resulted in less loop excisions (p<0.001). At initial colposcopy, the aggressive group showed a 10-fold incidence of histologically detected CIN lesions compared with the less aggressive group (1.8 vs. 19.5%). During 10 years of follow-up, both groups showed the same percentages of CIN lesions (8.1 vs. 8.4%). Aggressive management resulted in faster normalization of cervical smears (p<0.001). However, at final follow-up, there was no statistical difference in the percentage of normalization of cervical smears between both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive and less aggressive colposcopic strategies are equally safe and show good clinical outcomes. Treatment decisions, however, must be adjusted to women's individual demands.