These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: HPV DNA test and Pap smear in detection of residual and recurrent disease following loop electrosurgical excision procedure of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
    Author: Sarian LO, Derchain SF, Andrade LA, Tambascia J, Morais SS, Syrjänen KJ.
    Journal: Gynecol Oncol; 2004 Jul; 94(1):181-6. PubMed ID: 15262139.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: We compared the performance of cervical cytology and HPV DNA test in detection of residual or recurrent disease following the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 with loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A series of 107 women subjected to LEEP due to histologically confirmed CIN 2/3 between March 2001 and December 2002 were followed-up biannually until January 2004. Follow-up visits consisted of interview and gynecological examination including cervical cytology, hybrid capture II (HCII), and colposcopy. Patients presenting with abnormal colposcopy or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) smear were subjected to new excision procedure, and presence of histologically confirmed CIN 2/3 or higher was considered as residual or recurrent disease. Performance indicators were calculated for cytology and HCII assay in detecting residual or recurrent disease. RESULTS: Eleven (10.2%) women showed residual or recurrent disease during the follow-up. Considering HCII and Pap smear as stand-alone tests, both techniques showed similar sensitivity, detecting 100% of CIN 2/3 at the first follow-up visit. At the second follow-up visit, Pap smear showed better specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) than HCII, and both tests had fairly the same high negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity. The combined positive HCII and abnormal cytology had the same sensitivity as each of the tests alone, but specificity and PPV were significantly higher than those of single tests. When only one of the tests was positive, the sensitivity and the NPV of the combination remained the same, but its specificity and PPV were lower than that of the combined two positive tests and that of the individual test, at both follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS: Both tests performed well in detecting residual or recurrent disease after LEEP and combination of the tests did not increase sensitivity of the single tests.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]