Prognostic value of endocervical sampling following loop excision of high grade intraepithelial neoplasia

Value of top‐hat procedure in management of squamous intraepithelial lesion

“…However Chi‐square analysis showed that results from top‐hat specimen was not predictive for lesions in hysterectomy, so it might not be appropriate to use top‐hat procedure routinely to triage patients with CIN3 to more radical treatment. The result is in accordance with recent research on endocervical sampling …”

Comparative analysis of transcervical resection and loop electrosurgical excision in the treatment of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

“…Recurrence was defined as any HSIL identified histologically after 1 year of treatment. In addition, clearness was defined as no evidence of HSIL during follow‐up . Cervical stenosis was considered if a 3‐mm Hegar dilator could not pass through the cervix.…”

“…However, although LEEP has become the leading treatment for HSIL, no study has shown that LEEP guarantees complete excision of the CIN lesion. A study reported that approximately 17% of patients with HSIL undergoing LEEP had positive cone margins. Ideal cervical conization should ensure the complete eradication of CIN lesions and cause minimal harm to patients .…”

The value of endocervical curettage during loop electrosurgical excision procedures in predicting persistent/recurrent preinvasive cervical disease

“…Additionally, these guidelines recommend more rigorous and more frequent follow‐up—with the performance of cytology and endocervical curettage (ECC) every 4–6 months—in the presence of positive margins or a positive ECC at the time of conization for a CIN2+ lesion. It remains unclear which of these criteria (positive margins, a positive ECC, or a combination of these findings) is best at predicting persistent disease or recurrence …”

“…It remains unclear which of these criteria (positive margins, a positive ECC, or a combination of these findings) is best at predicting persistent disease or recurrence. [3][4][5][7][8][9][10][11][12] Limitations in human and economic resources and restrictions in access to technology constitute important barriers for low-and middle-income countries to adopt and implement the ASCCP recommendations, 1 particularly with regard to the use of universal co-testing as a follow-up strategy and the use of more frequent evaluations in the event of a positive finding on ECC or positive margins in the cone specimen. In Chile, a country that joined the OECD as recently as 2010, the national cervical cancer guidelines are regularly revised, with the latest update published in 2015.…”