Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2010
The clinically suspicious cervix--how often is it cancer?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Milingos Dimitrios S, Harry Vanessa N, Cruickshank Margaret E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of women referred to colposcopy with the clinical finding of suspected cancer ("clinically suspicious cervix").
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study of women referred to a dedicated colposcopy clinic serving a regional population with a clinically suspicious cervix was conducted. All referral letters were reviewed, and women were identified prospectively when the letter stated "referral for a clinically suspicious cervix." Relevant data were collected subsequently by case note review.
RESULTS: One hundred four women were identified, and 95 attended for colposcopy from September 2006 to January 2008. Nine women defaulted. Seventy-six (80%) had a normal cervix or a benign cervical pathological result. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia was detected in 15 patients (16%), and only 4 women (4%) had invasive cancer confirmed.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that women referred with a clinically suspicious cervix should be assessed in a general gynecology clinic rather than colposcopy because most will not have cancer. The small number of women with a clinical cancer can then be referred onto colposcopy, whereas women with benign pathological result can be treated appropriately in the general clinic.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study of women referred to a dedicated colposcopy clinic serving a regional population with a clinically suspicious cervix was conducted. All referral letters were reviewed, and women were identified prospectively when the letter stated "referral for a clinically suspicious cervix." Relevant data were collected subsequently by case note review.
RESULTS: One hundred four women were identified, and 95 attended for colposcopy from September 2006 to January 2008. Nine women defaulted. Seventy-six (80%) had a normal cervix or a benign cervical pathological result. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia was detected in 15 patients (16%), and only 4 women (4%) had invasive cancer confirmed.
CONCLUSIONS: We believe that women referred with a clinically suspicious cervix should be assessed in a general gynecology clinic rather than colposcopy because most will not have cancer. The small number of women with a clinical cancer can then be referred onto colposcopy, whereas women with benign pathological result can be treated appropriately in the general clinic.