Literature DB >> 9197451

An analysis of the factors involved in the diagnostic accuracy of colposcopically directed biopsy.

J J Baldauf1, M Dreyfus, J Ritter, E Philippe.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of colposcopically directed biopsy with the final diagnosis established by the analysis of the surgical specimen, and to determine the clinical and colposcopic factors on which the reliability of biopsy is based.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five hundred and sixty-seven women were seen by the same colposcopist who also performed the directed biopsies and/or the endocervical curettage. The final histological diagnosis identified 29 normal aspects (5.2%), 58 low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) (10.2%), 448 high-grade CINs (79.0%), 16 microinvasive cancers (2.8%) and 16 occult invasive cancers (2.8%). The influence of several factors--such as age, parity, menopause, pregnancy, history of cervical treatment, site of the squamocolumnar junction, localization, size and severity of the lesions--on the pertinence of the biopsy was studied in a uni- and multifactorial analysis.
RESULTS: Colposcopy was satisfactory in 399 patients (70.4%) in whom the colposcopic aspect was consistent with the final histological diagnosis in 81.2% of cases. The global agreement between biopsy diagnosis and final diagnosis was observed in 89.6% of cases. It was 84.2% for low-grade CINs, 95.8% for high-grade CINs, 31.2% for microinvasive cancers and 81.2% for invasive cancers. No clinical or colposcopic factor could be identified as independent factor associated with the diagnostic agreement with the directed biopsy. Conversely, concordance of biopsy was related to the final diagnosis since the only independent risk factors were a high-grade CIN (adjusted risk ratio (ARR)=1.52, 95% CI=1.11-2.08; p=0.006) and a microinvasive or invasive cancer (ARR=0.56, 95% CI=0.39 0.81; p=0.002).
CONCLUSION: To ensure that a microinvasive cancer has not been overlooked, the excision of high-grade CINs seems to be justified, whatever the clinical status and the colposcopic aspect.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9197451     DOI: 10.3109/00016349709047830

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  6 in total

Review 1.  False Negative Results in Cervical Cancer Screening-Risks, Reasons and Implications for Clinical Practice and Public Health.

Authors:  Anna Macios; Andrzej Nowakowski
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-20

2.  Accuracy of Colposcopically Guided Diagnostic Methods for the Detection of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.

Authors:  K Müller; P Soergel; P Hillemanns; M Jentschke
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.915

3.  Relevance of tumor angiogenesis patterns as a diagnostic value and prognostic indicator in oral precancer and cancer.

Authors:  Devi Charan Shetty; Puneet Ahuja; D K Taneja; Ajit Singh Rathore; Shivjot Chhina; Upasana Sethi Ahuja; Kiran Kumar; Anshuman Ahuja; Priyanka Rastogi
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2011-01-27

4.  Assessing colposcopic accuracy for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion detection: a retrospective, cohort study.

Authors:  Anying Bai; Jiaxu Wang; Qing Li; Samuel Seery; Peng Xue; Yu Jiang
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 2.809

5.  Optimizing the Detection of Occult Cervical Cancer: A Prospective Multicentre Study in China.

Authors:  Yanyun Li; Ying-Xin Gong; Qing Wang; Shujun Gao; Hongwei Zhang; Feng Xie; Qing Cong; Limei Chen; Qi Zhou; Zubei Hong; Lihua Qiu; Fang Li; Yu Xie; Long Sui
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2021-10-27

6.  Classification of cervical neoplasms on colposcopic photography using deep learning.

Authors:  Bum-Joo Cho; Youn Jin Choi; Myung-Je Lee; Ju Han Kim; Ga-Hyun Son; Sung-Ho Park; Hong-Bae Kim; Yeon-Ji Joo; Hye-Yon Cho; Min Sun Kyung; Young-Han Park; Byung Soo Kang; Soo Young Hur; Sanha Lee; Sung Taek Park
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.