Journals / Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association / 2014 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2

Cervical premalignant lesions and their management

Pages
109–121
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Ablative or destructive treatments should not be done without histological diagnosis; hysterectomy, which has an equal risk of recurrence, should not be recommended. (J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2014; 15: 109-21)

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Cervical cancer is the tenth most common cancer in women in developed countries that have national screening programs, while it is in the second line in underdeveloped countries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to Ministry of Health registry data, cervical cancer is the eighth most common cancer among female cancers in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Ablative or destructive treatments should not be done without histological diagnosis; hysterectomy, which has an equal risk of recurrence, should not be recommended. (J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2014; 15: 109-21)
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the tenth most common cancer in women in developed countries that have national screening programs, while it is in the second line in underdeveloped countries. According to Ministry of Health registry data, cervical cancer is the eighth most common cancer among female cancers in Turkey. Today, the most effective screening for cervical cancer is to obtain smears from the cervix. Therefore, periodic screening programs are of great importance in identifying preinvasive lesions to prevent their progression to invasive cancer. Today, with the use of human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, screening programs have brought new insights into the prevention of cervical cancer. Management of preinvasive lesions has to be known by each obstetrics and gynecology specialist. Redundant procedures and treatments can be avoided by directing patients correctly at this step. Cancer phobia should not be created. Ablative or destructive treatments should not be done without histological diagnosis; hysterectomy, which has an equal risk of recurrence, should not be recommended. (J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2014; 15: 109-21)

🔖

Cite This Article

NAKİ, M. M., KÖSE, F. M. (2022). Cervical premalignant lesions and their management. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2, 109–121. https://ajindex.com/articles/568076

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Vergote I, van der Zee AG, Kesic V, Sert B, Robova H, Rob L, et al. ESGO statement on cervical cancer vaccination. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007; 17: 1183-5. [CrossRef] Eser SY, Karakoc H. Cancer Incidence in Turkey. In: Tuncer M. Cancer Control in Turkey. Ankara: Ministry of Health; 2010. p. 35-50. de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany L, Geraets DT, Klaustermeier JE, Lloveras B, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 1048-56. [CrossRef] Usubutun A, Alemany L, Kucukali T, Ayhan A, Yüce K, de Sanjosé S, et al. Human papillomavirus types in invasive cervical cancer spec- imens from Turkey. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2009; 28: 541-8. [CrossRef] Parkin DM, Bray F. Chapter 2: The burden of HPV-related cancers. Vaccine 2006; 24 (Suppl 3): S11-25. [CrossRef] Koutsky LA. Epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infec- tion. Am J Med 1997; 102 (Suppl 1): S3-8. [CrossRef] de Sanjosé S, Diaz M, Castellsagué X, Clifford G, Bruni L, Muñoz N, Bosch FX. Worldwide prevelance and genotype distribution of cer- vical human papillomavirus DNA in women with normal cytology: A meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2007; 7: 453-9. [CrossRef] Peto J, Gilham C, Deacon J, Taylor C, Evans C, Binns W, et al. Cervical HPV infection and neoplasia in a large population-based prospective study: the Manchester cohort. Br J Cancer 2004; 91: 942-53.
  2. Tabbara SO, Sidawy MK. Evaluation of the 5 year review of negative cervical smears in patients with HGSIL. Diagn Cytopathol 1996; 14: 84-6. [CrossRef] Sherman ME, Schiffman M, Herrero R, Kelly D, Bratti C, Mango LJ, et al. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: results of apopulation based study conducted in Guanacaste, Costarica. Cancer 1998; 84: 273-80. [CrossRef] Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Goellner JR. False negative results in cervi- cal cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 1985; 29: 1043-6. Bleckert PO. Prevalance of HPV in cytologic normal smears deter- mined by PCR. Int Cancer 1993; 53: 912-23.
  3. Almonte M, Ferreccio C, Winkler JL, Cuzick J, Tsu V, Robles S, et al. Cervical screening by VİA, HPV testing, liquid-based and conventional cytology in Amazonian Peru. Int J Cancer 2007; 121: 796-802. [CrossRef] Moriarty AT, Clayton AC, Zaleski S, Henry MR, Schwartz MR, Eversole GM, et al. Unsatisfactory reporting rates: 2006 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in gynecologi