ABSTRACT

Conclusion:

Smear, colposcopy and LEEP should be used as complementary to each other when appropriate patients for excisional therapy are identified. Clinical correlation of histopathologic results of these methods is important.When premalign lesions are detected, it can be considered that the biopsy done with colposcopy is reliable. However, for definite diagnosis and treatment, the cervical conization method should be accepted as the gold standard and information should be given to the patient in this way. Therefore, patients need to be directed to excision treatment if needed.

Results:

When HPV DNA result was positive and the pathology results of LEEP and colposcopy were examined, CIN 2 + 3 was detected in 62.9% of the cases and this rate was found to be significantly high. When the histopathological results of LEEP and colposcopy were compared, 14.5% of cases with colposcopy result CIN 1 and 35.2% of cases with CIN 2 had the same histopathologic result after LEEP. Noteworthy was the presence of CIN 1 in 2.1%, CIN 2 + 3 in 2.8%, and invasive carcinoma in 1 case without lesions after colposcopy.

Materials and Methods:

From January 2010 to December 2017, 145 patients who had undergone LEEP treatment for our Gynecology and Obstetrics outpatient clinic were included in the study. The compliance scores between LEEP, colposcopic biopsy and smear pathology results of these patients were retrospectively analyzed. For the statistical analysis, NCSS (Number Cruncher Statistical System) 2007 (Kaysville, Utah, USA) program was used for statistical analysis.

Aim:

In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the degree of compatibility between patients who underwent smear, colposcopy and LEEP / conization stages of cervical cancer screening.