Search

Objective: To investigate the performance of human papilloma virus (HPV) typing as a triage tool in the management of patients with postcoital bleeding (PCB). Methods: All patients referred for colposcopy at a cervical pathology clinic of a nationwide health insurance organization, due to PCB and had a preceding high-risk HPV (hrHPV) test between 2018 and 2020, were retrospectively located. Demographic and pathologic data were collected from electronic medical files. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive value of hrHPV test according to final pathology were calculated. Results: Three hundred ninety patients referred for colposcopy due to PCB with a preceding hrHPV test were located. HrHPV-positive patients were significantly younger (33.7 ± 10 vs. 37.2 ± 9, p < 0.006) with a higher proportion of nulliparous, nonmarried, and smokers compared with hrHPV-negative patients (75% vs. 47%, p < 0.001; 75.4% vs. 45.1%, p < 0.001; and 24.6% vs. 12.8%, p < 0.028, respectively). No case of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) was identified among hrHPV-negative patients. The sensitivity and NPV of the hrHPV test for high-grade cervical lesions were both 100%, decreasing to 36% and 95%, respectively, for any cervical dysplasia (CIN1/CIN2/CIN3). Adding cytology to HPV typing had a negligible effect on test performance. At univariate analysis, age, HPV vaccine status, nulliparity, and positive HPV typing were independently associated with cervical dysplasia. At multivariate analysis, only positive HPV typing remained significantly associated with cervical dysplasia (hazard ratio 2.75, confidence interval 1.1–6.5, p = 0.023). Conclusion: A negative HPV test even in the presence of PCB may rule out cervical dysplasia with extremely high accuracy and may save unnecessary colposcopies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the use of manipulators on the outcome of women who had minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients operated with or without an intrauterine manipulator. Results: Six hundred ninety-nine patients were included. The median follow-up was 44 months (range, 29–67). Nineteen (8.8%) patients had positive cytology in the manipulator group versus 21 (4.4%) in the comparison group (p = 0.02). Total recurrence rate was similar between the groups (12.3% vs. 11.9%; p = 0.8). Vaginal vault recurrence was the most common site of recurrence with higher incidence in the manipulator group (4.5% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.007). Subgroup analysis of low-risk patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment showed higher recurrence rate (8.3% vs. 3%; p = 0.023) and worse disease-free survival (p = 0.01) for the manipulator group. After controlling for other variables, the use of a manipulator did not affect the risk of recurrence for the whole cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; confidence interval [95% CI], 0.7–2.1, p = 0.3) and for the low-risk subgroup of patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 0.8–7, p = 0.08). Conclusion: The use of a manipulator increases the risk of positive cytology as well as vaginal vault recurrences, but it does not reduce the overall survival of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]