A LEEP cervical conization is rarely indicated for a two-step discrepancy

Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 134-137

  Lanneau, Grainger S ^a,b   Skaggs, Valerie ^a   Moore, Kathleen ^a   Stowell, Sean ^a   Zuna, Rosemary ^a   Gold, Michael A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^b WP 2410 ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

2 step discrepancy; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; LEEP cone

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CAUTERIZATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LOOP ELECTROCAUTERY EXCISION PROCEDURE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TUMOR BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CONIZATION; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; COLPOSCOPY; CONIZATION; ELECTROCOAGULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 34347327201     PISSN: 10892591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.lgt.0000265776.29173.e1     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Wright TC Jr. 2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of woman with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. 189:295-304.
2. Bewtra C, Pathan M, Hashish H. Abnormal Pap smears with negative follow-up biopsies: improving cytologic correlations. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;29:200-2.
3. Spitzer M, Chernys AE, Shifrin A, Ryskin M. Indications for cone biopsy: pathologic correlation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:74-9.
4. Ferris DG, Hainer BL, Pffeninger JL, Zuber TJ. "See and Treat" electrosurgical loop excision of the cervical transformation zone. J Fam Pract 1996;42:253-7.
5. Prendville W, Davies R, Berry PJ. A low voltage diathermy loop for taking cervical biopsies: a qualitative comparison with punch biopsy forceps. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93:773-6.
6. Mor-Yosef S, Lopes A, Pearsons S, Monoghan JM. Loop diathermy cone biopsy. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:884-6.
7. Duggan BD, Felix JC, Muderspach LI, Gebhardt JA, Groshen S, Morrow CP, et al. Cold knife conization versus the loop electrical excision procedure: a randomized, prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:276-82.
8. Huang LW, Hwang JL. A comparison between loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold knife cone for treatment of cervical dysplasia: residual disease in a subsequent hysterectomy specimen. Gynecol Oncol 1999;73:12-5.
9. Klaritsch P, Reich O, Giuliani A, Tamussino K, Haas J, Winter R. Delivery outcome after cold-knife conization of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol 2006;103:604-7. Epub 2006 Jun 5.
10. Sadler L, Saftas A, Wang W, Exeter M, Whittaker J, McCowan L. Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA 291:2100-6.
11. McCord M, Stovall T, Summit R, Ling F. Discrepancy of cervical cytology and colposcopic biopsy: is cervical conization necessary? Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:715-9.
12. Souter WP, de Barros Lopes A, Fletcher A, Monaghan JM, Duncan ID, Paraskevaidis E, et al. Invasive cervical cancer after conservative therapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Lancet 1997;349:978-80.
13. Abdul-Karim FW, Fu YS, Reagon JW, Wentz WB. Morphometric study of intraepithelial neoplasia of the uterine cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1982;60:210-4.
14. Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. JAMA 2001:285:1500-5.
15. Renshaw AA, Davey DD, Birdsong GG, Walsh M, Styer PE, Modt DR, et al. Precision in gynecologic cytologic interpretation: a study from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:1413-20.
16. Grenko RT, Abendroth CS, Frauenhoffer EE, Ruggiero FM, Zaino RJ. Variance in the interpretation of cervical biopsy specimens obtained for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:735-40.