OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the relative importance of colposcopically directed biopsy, random biopsy, and endocervical curettage (ECC) in diagnosing > or =cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) II. Study design During a screening study, 364 women with satisfactory colposcopy and > or =CIN II were diagnosed. All colposcopically detected lesions were biopsied. If colposcopy showed no lesion in a cervical quadrant, a random biopsy was obtained at the squamocolumnar junction in that quadrant. ECC was then performed. RESULTS: The diagnosis of > or =CIN II was made on a colposcopically directed biopsy in 57.1%, random biopsy in 37.4%, and ECC in 5.5% of women. The yield of > or =CIN II for random biopsy when cytology was high grade (17.6%) exceeded that when cytology was low grade (2.8%). One of 20 women diagnosed solely by ECC had invasive cancer. CONCLUSION: Even when colposcopy is satisfactory, ECC should be performed. If cytology is high grade, random biopsies should be considered.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the relative importance of colposcopically directed biopsy, random biopsy, and endocervical curettage (ECC) in diagnosing > or =cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) II. Study design During a screening study, 364 women with satisfactory colposcopy and > or =CIN II were diagnosed. All colposcopically detected lesions were biopsied. If colposcopy showed no lesion in a cervical quadrant, a random biopsy was obtained at the squamocolumnar junction in that quadrant. ECC was then performed. RESULTS: The diagnosis of > or =CIN II was made on a colposcopically directed biopsy in 57.1%, random biopsy in 37.4%, and ECC in 5.5% of women. The yield of > or =CIN II for random biopsy when cytology was high grade (17.6%) exceeded that when cytology was low grade (2.8%). One of 20 women diagnosed solely by ECC had invasive cancer. CONCLUSION: Even when colposcopy is satisfactory, ECC should be performed. If cytology is high grade, random biopsies should be considered.
Authors: Walter Kinney; Barbara Fetterman; J Thomas Cox; Thomas Lorey; Tracy Flanagan; Philip E Castle Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Fang-Hui Zhao; Margaret Jane Lin; Feng Chen; Shang-Ying Hu; Rong Zhang; Jerome L Belinson; John W Sellors; Silvia Franceschi; You-Lin Qiao; Philip E Castle Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Philip E Castle; Ana C Rodríguez; Robert D Burk; Rolando Herrero; Allan Hildesheim; Diane Solomon; Mark E Sherman; Jose Jeronimo; Mario Alfaro; Jorge Morales; Diego Guillén; Martha L Hutchinson; Sholom Wacholder; Mark Schiffman Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Edward J Mayeaux; Akiva P Novetsky; David Chelmow; Francisco Garcia; Kim Choma; Angela H Liu; Theognosia Papasozomenos; Mark H Einstein; L Stewart Massad; Nicolas Wentzensen; Alan G Waxman; Christine Conageski; Michelle J Khan; Warner K Huh Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Lauren Wilson; Michael Pawlita; Phillip E Castle; Tim Waterboer; Vikrant Sahasrabuddhe; Patti E Gravitt; Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; Cosette M Wheeler; Nicolas Wentzensen; Patti E Gravitt Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Rosemary E Zuna; Mark E Sherman; Michael A Gold; Mark Schiffman; S Terence Dunn; Jose Jeronimo; Roy Zhang; Joan Walker; Sophia S Wang Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-09-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Ramesh A Bhosale; Smita N Joshi; Anita N Kavatkar; Chandraprabha A Nagwanshi; Rohini S Kelkar; Cathy A Jenkins; Bryan E Shepherd; Seema Sahay; Arun R Risbud; Sten H Vermund; Sanjay M Mehendale Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-01-08 Impact factor: 3.240