Problems of Cervical Biopsy

Scott, Roger B.; Ballard, Lester A.

doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1962.tb34687.x

Cited by 24 publications

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Cervical biopsy versus conization

Sabatelle¹,

Sedlis²,

Sall³

et al. 1969

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accuracy of a punch biopsy diagnosis of cervical neoplasia in patients with abnormal cytologic findings is assessed. Cervical punch biopsies were performed in 859 patients, and 258 had subsequent cold‐knife conizations. Invasive carcinoma was diagnosed in 189 patients by the initial cervical biopsy. Carcinoma in situ was noted in 194 patients, and this diagnosis was confirmed by conization in 75% of the cases. Pathology of a lower rank was found in 17%, microinvasion in 6%, and frank invasion in 2%. Dysplasia was diagnosed by biopsy in 246 patients. Of the cold‐knife conizations performed in 66 cases of dysplasia, 40% confirmed the dysplastic lesion, 40% revealed carcinoma in situ, 10% chronic cervicitis, 3% microinvasion and 2% invasive carcinoma. A comparative analysis of the biopsy, conization and hysterectomy findings is presented. Multiple cervical punch biopsies from properly selected sites aided by Schiller stain and including an adequate area of the squamocolumnar junction are useful as the initial diagnostic procedure in women with abnormal cytology or suspicious cervical lesions. Conization is indicated if biopsy or cytology findings raise suspicion of a higher rank of neoplasia. All patients with carcinoma in situ and severe dysplasia on biopsy must have subsequent conizations performed. The postmenopausal female with any degree of dysplasia on biopsy and patients with repeated abnormal cytologic findings despite negative biopsy results must also undergo conization.

show abstract

Cervical biopsy versus conization

Sabatelle¹,

Sedlis²,

Sall³

et al. 1969

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Neural network‐based screening (NNS) in cervical cytology: No need for the light microscope?

Kok

Schouw

Boon

et al. 2001

Diagnostic Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neural network-based screening (NNS) of cervical smears can be performed as a so-called "hybrid screening method," in which parts of the cases are additionally studied by light microscope, and it can also be used as "pure" NNS, in which the cytological diagnosis is based only on the digital images, generated by the NNS system. A random enriched sample of 985 cases, in a previous study diagnosed by hybrid NNS, was drawn to be screened by pure NNS. This study population comprised 192 women with (pre)neoplasia of the cervix, and 793 negative cases. With pure NNS, more cases were recognized as severely abnormal; with hybrid NNS, more cases were cytologically diagnosed as low-grade. For a threshold value > or = HSIL (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions), the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC) were 81% (95% CI, 75-88%) for pure NNS vs. 78% (95% CI, 75-81%) for hybrid NNS. For low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), the AUC was significantly higher for hybrid NNS (81%; 95% CI, 77-85%) than for pure NNS (75%; 95% CI, 70-80%). Pure NNS provides optimized prediction of HSIL cases or negative outcome. For the detection of LSIL, light microscopy has additional value.

show abstract

Microinvasive Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix

Javaheri

1978

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Problems of Cervical Biopsy

Cited by 24 publications

References 6 publications

Cervical biopsy versus conization

Cervical biopsy versus conization

Neural network‐based screening (NNS) in cervical cytology: No need for the light microscope?

Microinvasive Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About