Cost-Conscious Colposcopy: A Single-Institution Review of Biopsy Submission Practices and Outcomes.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1097/LGT.0000000000000735
Ian C Cook, Laura I Fuhr, Sarah E Flores, Wendy M Novicoff, Leigh A Cantrell
{"title":"Cost-Conscious Colposcopy: A Single-Institution Review of Biopsy Submission Practices and Outcomes.","authors":"Ian C Cook,&nbsp;Laura I Fuhr,&nbsp;Sarah E Flores,&nbsp;Wendy M Novicoff,&nbsp;Leigh A Cantrell","doi":"10.1097/LGT.0000000000000735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Distribution of cervical dysplasia may influence approach for excisional procedures. Separating colposcopy biopsies into multiple specimen cups for pathologic evaluation incurs additional costs. The authors aimed to determine whether the practice of separating biopsy specimens impacts patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of all colposcopy cases from a single institution was performed. A total of 1,331 cases were reviewed from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019. Multibiopsy cohorts were separated by number of specimen cups received by pathology (single or multiple). Cohorts were compared for histology, need for excisional procedure, and final excisional pathology results. Specimen processing fees were acquired from the Department of Pathology ($70/specimen). Statistical analysis performed on MINITAB using Pearson chi-square and Fisher exact tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Excisional procedures were required by 30.4% (86/283) of multiple specimen submissions compared with 28.2% (154/547) of single specimen cup submissions ( p = .50). There was a higher, although not statistically significant, rate of additional procedures in the multiple specimen cup cohort (8.8 vs 2.9% [ p = .08]). Malignancy diagnosis was equivalent in each cohort. Cost analysis revealed adopting a single specimen cup model would reduce costs up to approximately $30,000/year.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient outcomes were not improved by the practice of submitting multiple specimen cups. Given the additional cost associated with separating specimens, the authors recommend during routine colposcopy that all cervical biopsies be sent for evaluation as a single pathology specimen unless a lesion of concern is identified in an area not normally excised during traditional excisional procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":50160,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease","volume":"27 3","pages":"198-201"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000735","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Distribution of cervical dysplasia may influence approach for excisional procedures. Separating colposcopy biopsies into multiple specimen cups for pathologic evaluation incurs additional costs. The authors aimed to determine whether the practice of separating biopsy specimens impacts patient outcomes.

Methods: A retrospective review of all colposcopy cases from a single institution was performed. A total of 1,331 cases were reviewed from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019. Multibiopsy cohorts were separated by number of specimen cups received by pathology (single or multiple). Cohorts were compared for histology, need for excisional procedure, and final excisional pathology results. Specimen processing fees were acquired from the Department of Pathology ($70/specimen). Statistical analysis performed on MINITAB using Pearson chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

Results: Excisional procedures were required by 30.4% (86/283) of multiple specimen submissions compared with 28.2% (154/547) of single specimen cup submissions ( p = .50). There was a higher, although not statistically significant, rate of additional procedures in the multiple specimen cup cohort (8.8 vs 2.9% [ p = .08]). Malignancy diagnosis was equivalent in each cohort. Cost analysis revealed adopting a single specimen cup model would reduce costs up to approximately $30,000/year.

Conclusions: Patient outcomes were not improved by the practice of submitting multiple specimen cups. Given the additional cost associated with separating specimens, the authors recommend during routine colposcopy that all cervical biopsies be sent for evaluation as a single pathology specimen unless a lesion of concern is identified in an area not normally excised during traditional excisional procedures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成本意识阴道镜检查:活检提交实践和结果的单一机构回顾。
目的:宫颈发育不良的分布可能影响手术入路。将阴道镜活检分为多个标本杯进行病理评估会产生额外的费用。作者旨在确定分离活检标本的做法是否会影响患者的预后。方法:对同一医院的所有阴道镜检查病例进行回顾性分析。2017年1月1日至2019年12月31日,共审查1331例。根据病理接收的标本杯数量(单个或多个)进行多活检队列的分离。比较各组的组织学、切除手术的必要性和最终的切除病理结果。标本处理费由病理学系支付(70美元/个标本)。使用Pearson卡方检验和Fisher精确检验对MINITAB进行统计分析。结果:30.4%(86/283)的患者提交了多个标本,而28.2%(154/547)的患者提交了单杯标本(p = .50)。虽然没有统计学意义,但多标本杯组的额外手术率更高(8.8 vs 2.9% [p = .08])。恶性肿瘤诊断在每个队列中是相同的。成本分析显示,采用单样品杯模型每年可减少约30,000美元的成本。结论:提交多个标本杯的做法并没有改善患者的预后。考虑到与分离标本相关的额外费用,作者建议在常规阴道镜检查中,所有宫颈活检作为单个病理标本进行评估,除非在传统切除手术中通常不切除的区域发现了值得关注的病变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.10%
发文量
158
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease is the source for the latest science about benign and malignant conditions of the cervix, vagina, vulva, and anus. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed original research original research that addresses prevalence, causes, mechanisms, diagnosis, course, treatment, and prevention of lower genital tract disease. We publish clinical guidelines, position papers, cost-effectiveness analyses, narrative reviews, and systematic reviews, including meta-analyses. We also publish papers about research and reporting methods, opinions about controversial medical issues. Of particular note, we encourage material in any of the above mentioned categories that is related to improving patient care, avoiding medical errors, and comparative effectiveness research. We encourage publication of evidence-based guidelines, diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms, and decision aids. Original research and reviews may be sub-classified according to topic: cervix and HPV, vulva and vagina, perianal and anal, basic science, and education and learning. The scope and readership of the journal extend to several disciplines: gynecology, internal medicine, family practice, dermatology, physical therapy, pathology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, sex therapy, and pharmacology. The Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease highlights needs for future research, and enhances health care. The Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease is the official journal of the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease, and the International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy, and sponsored by the Australian Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology and the Society of Canadian Colposcopists.
期刊最新文献
Tiktok as a Source of Education and Misinformation in Lichen Sclerosus. Sexual Distress and Quality of Life in Women With Genital Erosive Lichen Planus-A Cross-sectional Study. Validation of the 2019 American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Online Cervical Cancer Screening Program via 9 Large-Cohort Data of Chinese Women. The Distribution of Cervical Transformation Zone and Its Impact on Colposcopic Diagnosis: A Multicenter Study in China. The Barriers and Perceived Benefits to Vulvar Self-examination in the Management of Vulvar Lichen Sclerosus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1