4.4 Article

Cervical cytology of atypical squamous cells cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H): histological results and recurrence after a loop electrosurgical excision procedure

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
卷 284, 期 4, 页码 965-971

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-010-1731-7

关键词

Atypical squamous cell; ASC-H; LEEP; Histology; Recurrence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To evaluate the histology of the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) surgical tissues of patients with ASC-H and post-LEEP recurrence. Methods Medical records of patients with ASC-H treated with LEEP between January 2004 and March 2008 in the town of Unio da Vitria, Parana, seat of the Sixth Public Health Region of Parana (CISVALI), were evaluated. The LEEP was carried out solely for ASC-H immediately after colposcopy, but without a histological diagnosis. Results Most patients were less than 40 years old (71.1%), with the largest group 20-39 years old (p < 0.0001). Twenty-eight patients (73.3%) showed histological lesions. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) I was present in 7 (18.4%), CIN II and CIN III in 9 (23.7%) each, microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCMCA) in 2 (5.3%), and SCMCA plus in situ adenocarcinoma in 1 (2.2%). In 32 patients (84.2%), there was no involvement of the margins, including 100% with no dysplasia histology and CIN I, 80.0% of those with CIN II, and 88.9% of those with CIN III. Two patients (5.3%) had endocervical involvement, all of them with CIN II. Four patients (10.5%) had ectocervical and endocervical involvement, one of them with CIN III, and three of them with carcinomas. All patients with follow-up (+) were ASC-US, with no patients with dysplasia or CIN I. Conclusions A very high portion of the women with ASC-H had lesions on post-LEEP histological examination, principally CIN II and III. These data show the benefits of treatment for ASC-H by LEEP immediately after colposcopy but without any previous histology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据