PubMed · 13002571
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
ROTTINGHUIS. 1952. [Curettage].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13002571/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the reliability of tumor typing and grading at the prehysterectomy curettage biopsy in patients with endometrial carcinoma. We also wanted to evaluate the overall rate of false-negative diagnosis in the detection of the disease. METHODS: The final pathologic reports of 263 patients whose diagnosis was endometrial carcinoma were compared with their prehysterectomy curettage reports. We searched for discrepancies between the 2 diagnoses. We also evaluated whether discrepancies varied with respect to the histologic type and tumor grade (endometrioid vs aggressive variant tumours). RESULTS: Although the statistical analysis predicted accuracy rates of DC diagnosis that exceeded 90%, the true figures proved to be more limited. DC pathology accurately predicted the final histologic result in 67.3% (177/263) of patients and the final tumor grade in 55.5% (146/263). Regarding the latter, we found 37.3% (98/263) of patients with undergraded tumors and 7.2% (19/263) with overgraded ones. The histologic type of the carcinoma crucially affected the diagnostic reliability of DC. Nevertheless, the overall false-negative rate in establishing the diagnosis of carcinoma was 7.6% (20/263). CONCLUSIONS: DC is a reliable procedure for establishing the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Its capability to correctly characterize the final histologic type varies significantly but is satisfactory overall and captures approximately three quarters of the patients; however, the procedure significantly underestimates tumor grade. The limitations of DC are due to the blindness of the sampling procedure.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Curettage and electrodesiccation (CE) is a technique widely used in the destruction of benign and selected malignant cutaneous neoplasms. CE is used mainly by dermatologists and family practice physicians, whereas plastic surgeons and other surgeons excise most benign and malignant lesions. The use of CE for the treatment of skin cancer has been widely extolled and also fervently criticized. Some practitioners treat most non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC) with CE, and others have called for abandoning the technique in the treatment of such lesions. A thorough review of the literature reveals that CE has both virtues and flaws. In taking a rational approach to the treatment of benign and malignant cutaneous lesions it is essential to learn the basis for CE, the likely cure rates for given lesions, the proper technique, and the expected level of cosmesis. As the surgical treatment of skin cancer has become firmly entrenched in the field of dermatology, it is valuable to examine this technique in depth and to come to some thoughtful conclusions about its use for patients with skin cancer and assorted benign skin lesions. Last year a remarkably complete and exhaustive favorable review of curettage, electrosurgery, and skin cancer was published by Sheridan and Dawber. This article is a must read for anyone performing curettage; however, the author is writing with a slightly different perspective, that of a dermatologic surgeon. Although the author believes that CE has value and he uses this technique frequently, he disagrees with some of the truisms expressed in the literature about CE and attempts to define carefully what he believes are the strengths and limitations of this technique.