2013PubMedOpen access

Three-step approach versus see-and-treat approach in patients with cytological abnormalities.

Nilgün Güdücü, Güliz Sidar, Nuray Başsüllü, İlknur Türkmen, İlkkan Dünder

Open full text 8 citations

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the results of see-and-treat procedure with the classical three-step procedure in terms of initial cytology and LEEP reports. We searched the pathology charts of patients that had LEEP were searched retrospectively and then they were divided into 2 groups according to the presence or absence of a cervical biopsy before LEEP. There were 116 patients in the study. Of the patients with ASCUS/LSIL cytology and a positive cervical biopsy 48.4% had CIN 2-3 at LEEP, in contrast only 19% of the patients without a prior cervical biopsy had CIN 2-3 at LEEP (p=0.031); there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 procedures in patients with a HSIL and ASC-H smear result (p=0.726 and p=1.0 respectively). In conclusion patients with ASC-H and HSIL cytology see-and-treat approach seems more advantageous, avoids delay in treatment, noncompliance and risk of skipping lesions at biopsy.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The aim of this study was to compare the results of see-and-treat procedure with the classical three-step procedure in terms of initial cytology and LEEP reports. We searched the pathology charts of patients that had LEEP were searched retrospectively and then they were divided into 2 groups according to the presence or absence of a cervical biopsy before LEEP. There were 116 patients in the study. Of the patients with ASCUS/LSIL cytology and a positive cervical biopsy 48.4% had CIN 2-3 at LEEP, in contrast only 19% of the patients without a prior cervical biopsy had CIN 2-3 at LEEP (p=0.031); there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 procedures in patients with a HSIL and ASC-H smear result (p=0.726 and p=1.0 respectively). In conclusion patients with ASC-H and HSIL cytology see-and-treat approach seems more advantageous, avoids delay in treatment, noncompliance and risk of skipping lesions at biopsy.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the results of see-and-treat procedure with the classical three-step procedure in terms of initial cytology and LEEP reports. We searched the pathology charts of patients that had LEEP were searched retrospectively and then they were divided into 2 groups according to the presence or absence of a cervical biopsy before LEEP. There were 116 patients in the study. Of the patients with ASCUS/LSIL cytology and a positive cervical biopsy 48.4% had CIN 2-3 at LEEP, in contrast only 19% of the patients without a prior cervical biopsy had CIN 2-3 at LEEP (p=0.031); there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 procedures in patients with a HSIL and ASC-H smear result (p=0.726 and p=1.0 respectively). In conclusion patients with ASC-H and HSIL cytology see-and-treat approach seems more advantageous, avoids delay in treatment, noncompliance and risk of skipping lesions at biopsy.

Key concepts: Medicine, Ascus (bryozoa), Cytology, Biopsy, Gynecology, Significant difference, Surgery, Radiology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Three-step approach versus see-and-treat approach in patients with cytological abnormalities. — Research Paper | ScholarLens