Premium
Cone biopsy: has endocervical sampling a role?
Author(s) -
ANDERSON D. J. M.,
STRACHAN F.,
PARKIN D. E.
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
bjog: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.157
H-Index - 164
eISSN - 1471-0528
pISSN - 1470-0328
DOI - 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb13852.x
Subject(s) - colposcopy , medicine , curette , endocervical curettage , sampling (signal processing) , biopsy , gynecology , cytology , radiology , pathology , cervical cancer , cancer , filter (signal processing) , computer science , computer vision
Objective To investigate the sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of endocervical sampling in women with abnormal cervical smears. Design A randomized study of two methods of endocervical sampling. Setting Colposcopy clinic at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Subjects 100 women with abnormal cervical smears selected for cone biopsy according to current colposcopy criteria. Interventions 53 women were randomized to have endocervical sampling with the Kevorkian curette and 47 to have sampling with the Medscand endocervical brush. Main outcome measures Cytology and histology results from endocervical sampling compared with cone biopsy histology. Results The overall sensitivity of endocervical sampling was 56%, with a false negative rate of 44% and a negative predictive value of 26%. Conclusions Endocervical sampling should not influence management when colposcopy is unsatisfactory.