Carrillo MMC

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 30
Paginas: 27-30
Archivo PDF: 51.05 Kb.

RESUMEN

El estándar de oro en la valoración de la patología cervical es el estudio colposcópico; sin embargo, encontramos al curetaje endocervical (CEC) como herramienta de apoyo para el diagnóstico de atipias cervicales, aunque su uso es controvertido. Se menciona que debe ser parte del manejo de la citología anormal; otros recomiendan su realización antes del cono diagnóstico del cuello de útero. En citologías con reporte de células atípicas glandulares (AGC) o adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) la realización del CEC debe ser rutinario, quedando sólo por establecerse el momento ideal para su realización.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Townsend DE, Richart RM, Marks E et al. Invasive cancer following outpatient evaluation and therapy for cervical disease. Obstet Gynecol 1981; 57: 145-149.

2. Kwikkel HJ, Bezemer PD, Helmerhorst TJ et al. Predictive value of a positive endocervical curettage in diagnosis and treatment of CIN. Gynecol Oncol 1986; 24: 162-170.

3. Grainger DA, Roberts DK, Wells MM et al. The value of endocervical curettage in the management of the patient with abnormal cervical cytologic findings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 625-628.

4. Hatch KD, Shingleton HM, Orr JW Jr et al. Role of endocervical curettage in colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65: 403-408.

5. Krebs HB, Wheelock JB. Endocervical curettage after cryotherapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Reprod Med 1985; 30: 379-382.

6. Saltzman DH, Evans MI, Warsof SL et al. Endocervical curettage as a routine part of colposcopic examinations for abnormal cervical cytology. J Reprod Med 1985; 30: 871-873.

7. Luesley D. Standards and quality in colposcopy. NHSCSP Publication, 1996.

8. Luesly D, Leeson S. Colposcopy and programme management. Guidelines for the NHS cervical screening Programme in HNSCSP, Scheffield, 2004.

9. Jafaru A, Quentin D. Endocervical curettage at the time of colposcopic assessment of the uterine cervix. Obstet and Gynecol Survey 2005; 60: 315-320.

10. Boon ME, Alons-Van KJJ, Rietveld-Scheffers PE. Consequences of the introduction of combined spatula and cytobrush sampling for cervical cytology. Improving in smear quality and detection rates. Acta Cytol 1986; 30: 264-270.

11. Taylor PT Jr, Andersen WA, Barber SR et al. The screening Papanicolaou smear: contribution of the endocervical brush. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 734-738.

12. Toplis PJ, Casemore V, Hallam N et al. Evaluation of colposcopy in the postmenopausal woman. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 843-851.

13. Denehy TR, Gregori CA, Breen JL. Endocervical curettage, cone margins, and residual adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 1-6.

14. Levine L, Luca III JA, Van Dihn T. Atypical glandular cells: New Bethesda terminology and management guidelines. CME Review Article. Obstet and Gynecol Survey 2003; 58: 399-406.

15. Krivak TC, Rose GS, Mc Broom JW et al. Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: A systematic review of therapeutic options and predictors of persistent or recurrent disease. CME review article. Obstet and Gynecol Survey 2001; 56 (9): 567-575.

16. Krivak TC. Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis of therapeutic options and predictors of persistent or recurrent disease. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease 2000; 4: 153-163.

17. Prentice ME. The predictive value of endocervical curettage and loop conization margins for persistent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease 2000; 4: 135-163.

18. Margin status and excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: A review. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Inc. 2000; 55 (8): 520-527.

19. Felix JC, Muderspach LI, Duggan BD et al. The significance of positive margins in loop electrosurgical cone biopsies. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 996-1000.

20. Husseinzadeh N, Shbaro I, Wesseler T. Predictive value of cone margins and post-cone endocervical curettage with residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 1989; 33: 198-200.

21. Kobak WH, Roman LD, Felix JC et al. The role of endocervical curettage at cervical conization for high-grade dysplasia. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 197-201.

22. Frauchiger WL, De Frias DVS, Cajulis RS et al. The immediate postconization endocervical smear: Evaluation of its utility in the detection of residual dysplasia. Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 1139-1143.

23. Wright TC, Gagnon S, Richart RM et al. Treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia using the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 173-178.

24. Goldstein NS, Mani A. The status and distance of cone biopsy margins as a predictor of excision adequacy for endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Am J Clin Pathol 1998; 109: 727-732.

25. 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: 702-707.

26. Sharpless KE, Schnatz PF, Mandavilli S, Greene JF, Sorosky JI. Dysplasia associated with atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 494-500.

27. Roman LD, Felix JC, Muderspach LI et al. Risk of residual invasive disease in women with microinvasive squamous cancer in a conization specimen. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 759-764.

28. Lapaquette TK, Dinh TV, Hannigan EV et al. Management of patients with positive margins after cervical conization. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 440-443.

29. Bundrick JB, Cook PA, Gostout BS. Screening for cervical caner and initial treatment for patients with abnormal results from Papanicolaou testing. Mayo Clin Proc 1005; 80 (8): 1363-1368.

30. Ioffe OB. Update on the diagnosis of noninvasive cervical glandular neoplasia. Pathology Case Reviews 2006; 11 (3): 112-116.