Contribution of Endocervical Curettage in Evaluating Abnormal Cervical Cytology
Charles W. Drescher, William A. Peters, James A. Roberts
Abstract
Charles W. Drescher, William A. Peters, James A. Roberts
Abstract
A review of 540 patients evaluated by the Gynecologic Colposcopy Clinic for abnormal cervical cytology revealed that 372 (68.9%) had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), microinvasive carcinoma, or frank invasive carcinoma. The repeat cytologic smear taken before biopsy was falsely negative in 26.4%. An endocervical curettage was obtained in 52.5% of patients with an adequate colposcopy who had a neo-plastic lesion and was positive in 17.9% of those sampled, including six patients with no lesion found on the ectocervix. An endocervical curettage was obtained in 88.5% of patients with an inadequate colposcopy who had a neoplastic lesion, and was positive in 48.7%. All patients with an inadequate colposcopy not having an endocervical curettage underwent conization of the cervix. Twelve patients (2.2%) were ultimately found to have invasive or microinvasive carcinoma. A positive endocervical curettage and an inadequate colposcopy were both correlated with a final diagnosis of invasion. The contribution of endocervical curettage to the outpatient work-up of abnormal cervical cytology is substantial and it should be performed in all patients in whom cone biopsy is not planned.
OpenAlex reports 58 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
A review of 540 patients evaluated by the Gynecologic Colposcopy Clinic for abnormal cervical cytology revealed that 372 (68.9%) had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), microinvasive carcinoma, or frank invasive carcinoma. The repeat cytologic smear taken before biopsy was falsely negative in 26.4%. An endocervical curettage was obtained in 52.5% of patients with an adequate colposcopy who had a neo-plastic lesion and was positive in 17.9% of those sampled, including six patients with no lesion found on the ectocervix. An endocervical curettage was obtained in 88.5% of patients with an inadequate colposcopy who had a neoplastic lesion, and was positive in 48.7%. All patients with an inadequate colposcopy not having an endocervical curettage underwent conization of the cervix. Twelve patients (2.2%) were ultimately found to have invasive or microinvasive carcinoma. A positive endocervical curettage and an inadequate colposcopy were both correlated with a final diagnosis of invasion. The contribution of endocervical curettage to the outpatient work-up of abnormal cervical cytology is substantial and it should be performed in all patients in whom cone biopsy is not planned.
Key concepts: Endocervical curettage, Medicine, Colposcopy, Curettage, Biopsy, Cytology, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, Gynecology