Literature DB >> 25204846

The increased detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia when using a second biopsy at colposcopy.

J van der Marel1, R van Baars2, A Rodriguez3, W G V Quint2, M M van de Sandt2, J Berkhof4, M Schiffman5, A Torné3, J Ordi6, D Jenkins2, R H M Verheijen7, Th J M Helmerhorst8, B Ter Harmsel9, N Wentzensen5, M Del Pino3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that colposcopy can miss a significant percentage of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). Improved disease ascertainment was evaluated by taking multiple lesion-directed biopsies.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional multicenter study in the Netherlands and Spain, 610 women referred to colposcopy following abnormal cervical cytology results were included. Multiple directed biopsies were collected from lesions and ranked according to impression. A non-directed biopsy of normal-appearing tissue was added if fewer than four biopsies were collected. We evaluated the additional CIN2+ yield for one and two directed biopsies. Colposcopic images were reviewed for quality control.
RESULTS: In women with at least two lesion-directed biopsies the yield for CIN2+ increased from 51.7% (95%CI; 45.7-57.7) for one directed biopsy to 60.4% (95%CI; 54.4-66.2, p<0.001) for two biopsies. The highest CIN2+ yield was observed in women who were HPV16-positive, had high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology, and high-grade colposcopy impression. The yield increased from 83.1% (95%CI; 71.5-90.5) with one directed biopsy to 93.2% (95%CI; 83.8-97.3) with two directed biopsies. Only 4.5% additional CIN2+ were detected in biopsies not targeting abnormal areas on the cervix.
CONCLUSIONS: A second lesion-directed biopsy is associated with a significant increase in CIN2+ detection. Performing a second lesion-directed biopsy and using a low threshold for abnormality of any acetowhitening should become the standard clinical practice of colposcopy.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Colposcopy; Human papillomavirus

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25204846     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.08.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  6 in total

1.  Value of multi-quadrants biopsy: Pooled analysis of 11 population-based cervical cancer screening studies.

Authors:  Yuqian Zhao; Fanghui Zhao; Shangying Hu; Xun Zhang; Wenhua Zhang; Qinjing Pan; Julia C Gage; Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan; Youlin Qiao
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 5.087

2.  p16 staining has limited value in predicting the outcome of histological low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix.

Authors:  Amaia Sagasta; Paola Castillo; Adela Saco; Aureli Torné; Roser Esteve; Lorena Marimon; Jaume Ordi; Marta Del Pino
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 7.842

3.  A prospective study of risk-based colposcopy demonstrates improved detection of cervical precancers.

Authors:  Nicolas Wentzensen; Joan Walker; Katie Smith; Michael A Gold; Rosemary Zuna; L Stewart Massad; Angela Liu; Michelle I Silver; S Terence Dunn; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-02-17       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Screening test accuracy to improve detection of precancerous lesions of the cervix in women living with HIV: a study protocol.

Authors:  Katayoun Taghavi; Misinzo Moono; Mulindi Mwanahamuntu; Partha Basu; Andreas Limacher; Taniya Tembo; Herbert Kapesa; Kalongo Hamusonde; Serra Asangbeh; Raphael Sznitman; Nicola Low; Albert Manasyan; Julia Bohlius
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  The Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Cervical Colposcopy: A Retrospective Data Analysis.

Authors:  Yuqian Zhao; Yucong Li; Lu Xing; Haike Lei; Duke Chen; Chao Tang; Xiaosheng Li
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 4.375

Review 6.  Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

Authors:  David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 14.432

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.