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: Clinical practice variation and overtreatment risk in women with abnormal cervical cytology in the Netherlands: two-step versus see-and-treat approach.
    Author: Loopik DL, Siebers AG, Melchers WJG, Massuger LFAG, Bekkers RLM.
    Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Apr; 222(4):354.e1-354.e10. PubMed ID: 31647895.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Only a few small studies have compared the 2-step method (biopsy followed by treatment) with a see-and-treat (immediate treatment) approach in women both low-grade or high-grade referral cytology. The clinical practice variation in the Netherlands has not been reviewed before. OBJECTIVES: To determine overtreatment rates in the 2-step versus see-and-treat approach in women referred for colposcopy because of abnormal cytology results, and to evaluate clinical practice variation in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study including 36,581 women with a histologic result of the cervix identified from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) between 2016 and 2017. Odds ratios for overtreatment, defined primarily as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less, were determined for the 2-step and see-and-treat approach in relation to age, high-risk human papillomavirus status, and referral cytology. RESULTS: Of the included women 10,713 women (29.3%) received the 2-step method; 6,851 women (18.7%) underwent see-and-treat; and 19,017 women (52.0%) received conservative management after colposcopy with histologic assessment with cytologic follow-up or another type of treatment. Despite the existence of a national guideline advising see-and-treat only in case of suspected high-grade disease in women who have completed their childbearing, there is a wide practice variation between the 2 strategies in the Netherlands, with 7.0-88.3% of the women receiving see-and-treat per laboratory. The median time between cytology and treatment was 1-2 months (range, 0-12 months) in women receiving see-and-treat and the 2-step method, respectively. A total of 4119 women (23.5%) were overtreated, with older women, high-risk human papillomavirus-negative women, and women with low-grade cytology results being more likely to be overtreated. Women with low-grade cytology results and see-and-treat were associated with a higher overtreatment rate than women receiving the 2-step method (65.0% [1414 of 2174] versus 32.1% [1161 of 3613], respectively; odds ratio, 3.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.92-3.82). However, in women with high-grade cytology results, see-and-treat was inversely associated with overtreatment (11.3% [529 of 4677] versus 14.3% [1015 of 7100], respectively; odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.81). CONCLUSION: A see-and-treat approach is justified only in women with high-grade cytology results who have completed their childbearing. There is a wide practice variation between the 2 strategies in the Netherlands, and gynecologists should adhere to the guideline to prevent overtreatment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]