OBJECTIVE: To determine the overtreatment rate at colposcopy in women who underwent a see-and-treat protocol. METHODS: We identified 3,192 patients (mean age 36 years, standard deviation 8.7) who underwent a see-and-treat protocol in Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center between January 1981 and December 2010. Overtreatment, defined as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 or less at final histopathology analysis, was investigated in relation to the age of the women, time of referral, cervical smear result, colposcopic impression, and histopathology result. RESULTS: A total of 579 women (18.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.7-19.5) were overtreated. The lowest overtreatment rate (4.5%, 95% CI 3.5-5.5) was seen in women with both a high-grade cervical smear result and a high-grade colposcopic impression. Women aged younger than 40 years were less likely to be overtreated (13.1%, 95% CI 11.7-14.5) than women aged 40-49 years (24.2% 95% CI 21.2-27.4, number needed to harm nine) and aged 50 years and older (42.2%, 95% CI 36.5-47.7, number needed to harm three). CONCLUSIONS: The overtreatment rate is low for patients with both a high-grade smear result and a high-grade colposcopic impression, justifying a see-and-treat approach for these patients. In women with either a high-grade smear result or a high-grade impression on colposcopy, a see-and-treat approach may still be preferable but has higher overtreatment rates. Given the side effects of cervical surgery on pregnancy outcome, young women, in particular those who have either a low-grade smear result or low-grade impression on colposcopy, are better served by a two-step approach. In older women, a see-and-treat policy may be preferable.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the overtreatment rate at colposcopy in women who underwent a see-and-treat protocol. METHODS: We identified 3,192 patients (mean age 36 years, standard deviation 8.7) who underwent a see-and-treat protocol in Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center between January 1981 and December 2010. Overtreatment, defined as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 or less at final histopathology analysis, was investigated in relation to the age of the women, time of referral, cervical smear result, colposcopic impression, and histopathology result. RESULTS: A total of 579 women (18.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.7-19.5) were overtreated. The lowest overtreatment rate (4.5%, 95% CI 3.5-5.5) was seen in women with both a high-grade cervical smear result and a high-grade colposcopic impression. Women aged younger than 40 years were less likely to be overtreated (13.1%, 95% CI 11.7-14.5) than women aged 40-49 years (24.2% 95% CI 21.2-27.4, number needed to harm nine) and aged 50 years and older (42.2%, 95% CI 36.5-47.7, number needed to harm three). CONCLUSIONS: The overtreatment rate is low for patients with both a high-grade smear result and a high-grade colposcopic impression, justifying a see-and-treat approach for these patients. In women with either a high-grade smear result or a high-grade impression on colposcopy, a see-and-treat approach may still be preferable but has higher overtreatment rates. Given the side effects of cervical surgery on pregnancy outcome, young women, in particular those who have either a low-grade smear result or low-grade impression on colposcopy, are better served by a two-step approach. In older women, a see-and-treat policy may be preferable.
Authors: Michelle I Silver; Jeff Andrews; Charles K Cooper; Julia C Gage; Michael A Gold; Michelle J Khan; L Stewart Massad; Valentin Parvu; Rebecca B Perkins; Mark Schiffman; Katie M Smith; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Van T Nghiem; Kalatu R Davies; J Robert Beck; Michele Follen; Scott B Cantor Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Rasa Vansevičiūtė; Jonas Venius; Olga Žukovskaja; Daiva Kanopienė; Simona Letautienė; Ričardas Rotomskis Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Stephanie S Liu; Karen K L Chan; Tina N Wei; Ka Yu Tse; Siew F Ngu; Mandy M Y Chu; Lesley S K Lau; Annie N Y Cheung; Hextan Y S Ngan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: A Boers; R P Bosgraaf; R W van Leeuwen; E Schuuring; D A M Heideman; L F A G Massuger; V M J Verhoef; J Bulten; W J G Melchers; A G J van der Zee; R L M Bekkers; G B A Wisman Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Clare A Aitken; Albert G Siebers; Suzette M Matthijsse; Erik E L Jansen; Ruud L M Bekkers; Jeroen H Becker; Bram Ter Harmsel; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Folkert J van Kemenade; Inge M C M de Kok Journal: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 3.636