SavedAdd your journal

Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2018 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 3

Three-Step Approach Versus See-and-Treat Procedure in Women with High Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion or Atypical Squamous Cells Cannot Exclude High Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Cytology

Mustafa Erkan SARI
Ibrahim YALCIN
Hanifi SAHIN
Mehmet Mutlu MEYDANLI
Tayfun GUNGOR
Pages
151–155
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

After a cytological diagnosis of HSIL, “see and treat” approach seems to be a safe and time saving strategy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between histological findings in women with HSIL or ASC-H who have undergone loop electrosurgical excisional procedure with “ThreeStep Approach” and “See-and-Treat Procedure".
📊
Key Findings & Data:STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review was performed in 171 women with cytologically detected HSIL or ASC-H.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:After a cytological diagnosis of HSIL, “see and treat” approach seems to be a safe and time saving strategy.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between histological findings in women with HSIL or ASC-H who have undergone loop electrosurgical excisional procedure with “ThreeStep Approach” and “See-and-Treat Procedure". STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review was performed in 171 women with cytologically detected HSIL or ASC-H. Sixty five women with HSIL cytology and 35 women with ASC-H cytology were managed by “Three-Step Approach”, 35 women with ASC-H and 36 women with HSIL cytology were managed by "See-and-Treat Procedure”. Rates of histopathological findings were compared in two strategies with respect to previous cytology. RESULTS: Fifteen women with ASC-H (42.9%), and 24 women with HSIL (68.5%) had CIN 2-3 at loop electrosurgical excisional procedure specimens in the “See-and-Treat” group whereas 14 women with ASC-H (38.8%), and 43 women with HSIL (66.2%) had CIN 2-3 at loop electrosurgical excisional procedure specimens in the “Three-Step Approach” group. There was no significant difference in the rate of CIN 2+ lesions when two strategies were compared in women with HSIL and ASC-H (p=0.71 and p=0.72, respectively). The overtreatment rates were 22.9% and 48.6% for HSIL and ASC-H cytology, respectively in the “See and Treat” group. CONCLUSION: In the ASC-H group, the rate of CIN 2+ lesions is significantly high (51.4%). It seems rational to perform “See-and-Treat procedure” in the setting of ASC-H smears although the overtreatment rate seems to be high. Because of the rate of overtreatment, the “Three-Step Approach” seems to be more reasonable in women with ASC-H cytology who also have fertility concerns. After a cytological diagnosis of HSIL, “see and treat” approach seems to be a safe and time saving strategy.

🔖

Cite This Article

SARI, M. E., YALCIN, I., SAHIN, H., MEYDANLI, M. M., GUNGOR, T. (2018). Three-Step Approach Versus See-and-Treat Procedure in Women with High Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion or Atypical Squamous Cells Cannot Exclude High Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Cytology. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 3, 151–155. https://ajindex.com/articles/164995

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Prendeville W, Cullimore J, Norman S. Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ): A new method of management for women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1989
  2. 96(9):1054-60 2. Chanen W, Rome RM. Electrocoagulation diathermy for cervical dysplasia and carcinoma in situ: a 15-year survey. Obstet Gynecol 1983
  3. 61(6):673-9. 3. Bigrigg MA, Codling BW, Pearson P, Read MD, Swingler GR. Colposcopic diagnosis and treatment of cervical dysplasia at a single clinic visit. Lancet 1990
  4. 336(8709):229- 31 4. Balasubramani L, Orbell S, Hagger M, Brown V, Tidy J. Do women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia prefer a see and treat option in colposcopy? BJOG 2007
  5. 114(1):39-45 5. Ferris DG, Hainer BL, Pfenninger JL, Zuber TJ. ‘See and treat’ electrosurgical loop excision of the cervical transformation zone. J Fam Pract 1996
  6. 42(3):253-7. 6. Fung HY, Cheung LP, Rogers MS, To KF. The treatment of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia: when could we ‘‘see and loop’’? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1997
  7. 72(2):199-204. 7. Szurkus DC, Harrison TA. Loop excision for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion on cytology: correlation with colposcopic and histologic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003
  8. 188(5):1180-2. 8. Berdichevsky L, Karmin R, Chuang L. Treatment of highgrade squamous intraepithelial lesions: a 2-versus3-step approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004
  9. 190(5):1424-6. 9. Darwish A, Gadallah H. One-step management of cervical lesions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1998
  10. 61(3):261-7. 10. Hallam NF, West J, Harper C, Edwards A, Hope S, Merriman H, et al. Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) as an alternative to both local ablative and cone biopsy treatment: a series of 1000 patients. J Gynecol Surg 1993
  11. 9(2):77-82. 11. TOMBOLA Group. Biopsy and selective recall compared with immediate large loop excision in management of women with low grade abnormal cervical cytology referred for colposcopy: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009
  12. b2548. 12. Das SS, Elias AH. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in a single visit. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1998
  13. 38(3):246-50. 13. Numnum TM, Kirby TO, Leath CA 3rd, Huh WK, Alvarez RD, Straughn JM Jr. A prospective evaluation of ‘see and treat’ in women with HSIL Pap smear results: is this an appropriate strategy? J Low Genit Tract Dis 2005
  14. 9(1):2-6 14. Bosgraaf RP, Mast PP, Struik-van der Zanden PH, Bulten J, Massuger LF, Bekkers RL. Overtreatmen