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: Risk of High-Grade Histopathology Diagnosed by Cervical Conization in Endocervical Curettage Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 1: A Case-Control Study.
    Author: Cong Q, Xiao J, Tao X, Sui L.
    Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis; 2020 Jul; 24(3):247-251. PubMed ID: 32324695.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to estimate risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ (CIN 2+) on loop electrosurgical excisional procedure (LEEP) specimens with the diagnosis of endocervical curettage (ECC) CIN 1 compared with biopsy CIN 1. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective computer-based search for subjects enrolled in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University. The case group comprised women with an ECC CIN 1 (ECC results of CIN 1 with colposcopy-directed biopsy results ≤CIN 1), and the control group comprised women with a biopsy CIN 1 (colposcopy-directed biopsy results of CIN 1 with negative ECC findings) diagnosis. Variables, including age, cytology, high-risk human papillomavirus, and ECC results, were included in univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. p < .05 was defined statistically significant. RESULTS: Overall, 1,195 women with ECC CIN 1 and/or biopsy CIN 1 diagnosis who underwent LEEP participated in the study. ECC CIN 1 comprised 400 women, with LEEP histopathology results revealing 104 (26.00%) CIN 2+. Biopsy CIN 1 comprised 795 women, with LEEP histopathology results showing 150 (18.87%) CIN 2+. Univariate logistic regression showed that cytology (p < .001) and ECC (p = .005) results differ significantly between less than CIN 2+ and CIN 2+. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that the cytology of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR = 4.73, 95% CI = 2.78-8.05, p < .001) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (HSIL+, OR = 4.88, 95% CI = 3.00-7.94, p < .001), and ECC CIN 1 (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.33-2.44, p < .001) were risk factors for CIN 2 + . CONCLUSIONS: Endocervical curettage CIN 1 has a greater risk of CIN 2+ diagnosis than biopsy CIN 1, but high-grade cytology has a higher risk than ECC CIN 1.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]