open access

Vol 88, No 9 (2017)
Research paper
Published online: 2017-09-29
Get Citation

Is routine performance of the uterine cervix canal curettage prior to the curettage of the uterine cavity justified?

Szymon Piątek1, Jacek Lipa, Monika Górska, Katarzyna Malecha, Grzegorz Panek1, Mirosław Wielgoś1
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2017.0085
·
Pubmed: 29057431
·
Ginekol Pol 2017;88(9):463-468.
Affiliations
  1. 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland

open access

Vol 88, No 9 (2017)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2017-09-29

Abstract

Objectives: Endocervical curettage (ECC) together with the dilatation and curettage of the uterine cavity (D & C) is routinely performed in everyday clinical practice. The aim of this study is to assess the rationale of the performance of ECC prior to D & C in indications other than abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

Material and methods: Case histories of 736 patients after ECC performed in the 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of Warsaw, were analyzed retrospectively, the indications for the procedure — age, menopausal status, parity, procedure operator’s experience — as well as the result of the histopathology examination were taken into account. Three groups of patients were distinguished based on the indications for the procedure.

Results: In 645 (87.6%) of cases normal histopathology results were obtained. 40 (5.4%) cases were abnormal. 31 cases of uterine cervix dysplasia were disclosed (CIN 1–20; CIN 2–5; CIN 3–6), 8 cases of endometrial cancer and 1 case of cancer of the uterine cervix were disclosed. In 51 (7%) of cases tissue material for histopathology examination was not obtained. In patients where ECC and D & C were performed due to indications other than abnormal bleeding from uterine cavity, no abnormal results were revealed. In addition, in this group the highest number of non-diagnostic ECCs was reported (11.59%; p < 0.05).

Conclusions: In the case of endometrial biopsy for indications other than AUB routine ECC prior to D & C need not be performed.

Abstract

Objectives: Endocervical curettage (ECC) together with the dilatation and curettage of the uterine cavity (D & C) is routinely performed in everyday clinical practice. The aim of this study is to assess the rationale of the performance of ECC prior to D & C in indications other than abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB).

Material and methods: Case histories of 736 patients after ECC performed in the 1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of Warsaw, were analyzed retrospectively, the indications for the procedure — age, menopausal status, parity, procedure operator’s experience — as well as the result of the histopathology examination were taken into account. Three groups of patients were distinguished based on the indications for the procedure.

Results: In 645 (87.6%) of cases normal histopathology results were obtained. 40 (5.4%) cases were abnormal. 31 cases of uterine cervix dysplasia were disclosed (CIN 1–20; CIN 2–5; CIN 3–6), 8 cases of endometrial cancer and 1 case of cancer of the uterine cervix were disclosed. In 51 (7%) of cases tissue material for histopathology examination was not obtained. In patients where ECC and D & C were performed due to indications other than abnormal bleeding from uterine cavity, no abnormal results were revealed. In addition, in this group the highest number of non-diagnostic ECCs was reported (11.59%; p < 0.05).

Conclusions: In the case of endometrial biopsy for indications other than AUB routine ECC prior to D & C need not be performed.

Get Citation

Keywords

endocervical curettage, dilatation and curettage, endometrial biopsy

About this article
Title

Is routine performance of the uterine cervix canal curettage prior to the curettage of the uterine cavity justified?

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 88, No 9 (2017)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

463-468

Published online

2017-09-29

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2017.0085

Pubmed

29057431

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2017;88(9):463-468.

Keywords

endocervical curettage
dilatation and curettage
endometrial biopsy

Authors

Szymon Piątek
Jacek Lipa
Monika Górska
Katarzyna Malecha
Grzegorz Panek
Mirosław Wielgoś

References (33)
  1. Moniak CW, Kutzner S, Adam E, et al. Endocervical curettage in evaluating abnormal cervical cytology. J Reprod Med. 2000; 45(4): 285–292.
  2. Soisson AP, Molina CY, Benson WL. Endocervical curettage in the evaluation of cervical disease in patients with adequate colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 71(1): 109–111.
  3. Solomon D, Stoler M, Jeronimo J, et al. Diagnostic utility of endocervical curettage in women undergoing colposcopy for equivocal or low-grade cytologic abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110(2 Pt 1): 288–295.
  4. Pretorius RG, Zhang WH, Belinson JL, et al. Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191(2): 430–434.
  5. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al. 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference, 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013; 17(5 Suppl 1): S1–S27.
  6. Nasierowska-Guttmejer A, Kędzia W, Wojtylak S, et al. Polish recommendations regarding diagnostics and treatment of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions according to the CAP/ASCCP guidelines. Ginekol Pol. 2016; 87(9): 676–682.
  7. Oyer R, Hanjani P. Endocervical curettage: does it contribute to the management of patients with abnormal cervical cytology? Gynecol Oncol. 1986; 25(2): 204–211.
  8. Piątek S, Panek G, Wielgoś M. Assessment of the usefulness of pipelle biopsy in gynecological diagnostics. Ginekol Pol. 2016; 87(8): 559–564.
  9. Soost HJ, Lange HJ, Lehmacher W, et al. The validation of cervical cytology. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Cytol. 1991; 35(1): 8–14.
  10. van der Graaf Y, Vooijs GP. False negative rate in cervical cytology. J Clin Pathol. 1987; 40(4): 438–442.
  11. Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, et al. Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial Study Group. Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(16): 1579–1588.
  12. Rokita W, Kedzia W, Pruski D, et al. [The diagnostic value of cytology and colposcopy in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia]. Ginekol Pol. 2011; 82(8): 607–611.
  13. Barut MU, Kale A, Kuyumcuoğlu U, et al. Analysis of Sensitivity, Specificity, and Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Smear and Colposcopy in Diagnosis of Premalignant and Malignant Cervical Lesions. Med Sci Monit. 2015; 21: 3860–3867.
  14. Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, et al. Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer. 2006; 119(5): 1095–1101.
  15. Andersen W, Frierson H, Barber S, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of endocervical curettage and the endocervical brush for the evaluation of the endocervical canal. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 159(3): 702–707.
  16. Mogensen ST, Bak M, Dueholm M, et al. Cytobrush and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of dysplasia and malignancy of the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997; 76(1): 69–73.
  17. Klam S, Arseneau J, Mansour N, et al. Comparison of endocervical curettage and endocervical brushing. Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 96(1): 90–94.
  18. Hoffman MS, Sterghos S, Gordy LW, et al. Evaluation of the cervical canal with the endocervical brush. Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 82(4 Pt 1): 573–577.
  19. Fine BA, Feinstein GI, Sabella V. The pre- and postoperative value of endocervical curettage in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1998; 71(1): 46–49.
  20. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al. 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121(4): 829–846.
  21. Mauney M, Eide D, Sotham J. Rates of condyloma and dysplasia in Papanicolaou smears with and without endocervical cells. Diagn Cytopathol. 1990; 6(1): 18–21.
  22. Robertson JH, Woodend B. Negative cytology preceding cervical cancer: causes and prevention. J Clin Pathol. 1993; 46(8): 700–702.
  23. Selvaggi SM, Guidos BJ. Endocervical component: is it a determinant of specimen adequacy? Diagn Cytopathol. 2002; 26(1): 53–55.
  24. Mitchell H, Medley G. Cytological reporting of cervical abnormalities according to endocervical status. Br J Cancer. 1993; 67(3): 585–588.
  25. Mitchell H, Medley G. Influence of endocervical status on the cytologic prediction of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Acta Cytol. 1992; 36(6): 875–880.
  26. Mitchell HS. Longitudinal analysis of histologic high-grade disease after negative cervical cytology according to endocervical status. Cancer. 2001; 93(4): 237–240.
  27. Spaczyński M, Karowicz-Bilinska A, Kedzia W, et al. [Attendance rate in the Polish Cervical Cancer Screening Program in the years 2007-2009]. Ginekol Pol. 2010; 81(9): 655–663.
  28. Poynor EA, Barakat RR, Hoskins WJ. Management and follow-up of patients with adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 1995; 57(2): 158–164.
  29. Wolf JK, Levenback C, Malpica A, et al. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: significance of cone biopsy margins. Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 88(1): 82–86.
  30. Irvin W, Flora S, Andersen W, et al. Endocervical curettage. Does it contribute to the management of patients with abnormal cervical cytology? J Reprod Med. 2004; 49(1): 1–7.
  31. Espindola D, Kennedy KA, Fischer EG. Management of abnormal uterine bleeding and the pathology of endometrial hyperplasia. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2007; 34(4): 717–737.
  32. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Broder MS, et al. FIGO Working Group on Menstrual Disorders. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011; 113(1): 3–13.
  33. Boardman LA, Meinz H, Steinhoff MM, et al. A randomized trial of the sleeved cytobrush and the endocervical curette. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101(3): 426–430.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl