Diagnostic Utility of Endocervical Curettage During Colposcopy Among Patients of Varying Risk Factors: Erratum : Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Erratum

Diagnostic Utility of Endocervical Curettage During Colposcopy Among Patients of Varying Risk Factors: Erratum

Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease 27(1):p 102-103, January 2023. | DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000716
  • Free

In the article "Diagnostic Utility of Endocervical Curettage During Colposcopy Among Patients of Varying Risk Factors," the total number identified in Tables 1 and 2 were incorrect, as they did not account for missing data for 3 of the variables. This has been addressed by adding the missing data in as a separate row and with the correct totals included in Table 1 and Table 2. All records that had missing variables reflected in Table 1 as “Unknown/Not reported” were records that happened to be negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM) cytology on Pap smear, which is why the totals for NILM cytology were adjusted in Table 2. The corrected tables appear below.

TABLE 1 - Demographic Breakdown for Individuals with Negative/Benign ECC and ECC at Time of Colposcopy
Benign ECC (n = 1,111) LSIL ECC (n = 83) HSIL ECC (n = 82) Others (AIS, AGS) ECC (n = 4) ECC Not Done
(n = 341)
p
Insured 865 (77.9) 66 (79.5) 46 (56.1) 3 (75.0) 198 (58.1) <.001
Age (y) .3
 20–29 209 (18.8) 17 (20.5) 12 (14.6) 0 (0.0) 6 (19.6)
 30–39 662 (59.6) 43 (51.8) 48 (58.5) 3 (75.0) 19 (57.8)
 40–49 224 (20.2) 19 (22.9) 18 (22.20 1 (25.0) 65 (19.1)
 >50 16 (1.4) 4 (4.8) 4 (4.9) 0 (0.0) 12 (3.5)
BMI > 30 344 (31.0) 27 (32.5) 26 (31.7) 2 (50.0) 110 (32.3) .9
Race .003
 Asian 71 (6.8) 7 (78.8) 7 (8.5) 0 (0.0) 18 (5.7)
 Black 204 (19.5) 15 (18.8) 16 (19.5) 1 (25.0) 54 (17.0)
 White 639 (61.1) 47 (58.9) 53 (64.6) 3 (25.0) 54 (17.0)
 Others 132 (12.6) 11 (13.8) 6 (7.4) 0 (0.0) 12 (3.8)
 Unknown/not reported 65 (5.9) 3 (3.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 23 (6.7)
Ethnicity <.001
 Non-Hispanic 749 (71.6) 59 (73.8) 50 (61.0) 3 (75.0) 163 (51.3)
 Hispanic 297 (28.4) 21 (26.3) 32 (39.0) 1 (25.0) 155 (48.7)
 Unknown/not reported 65 (5.9) 3 (3.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 23 (6.7)
Medical history
 Diabetes mellitus 5 (0.5) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 0 (0.0) 4 (1.2) .6
 Hypertension 66 (5.9) 8 (9.6) 2 (2.4) 1 (25.0) 14 (4.1) 0.07
 Breast malignancy 7 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0.5
 Immunocompromised 33 (3.0) 2 (2.4) 1 (1.2) 0 (0.0) 6 (1.8)
Smoking status 0.02
 Nonsmoker 923 (89.5) 67 (88.2) 66 (82.5) 3 (75.0) 305 (93.8)
 Ex-smoker 46 (4.5) 6 (7.9) 6 (7.5) 1 (25.0) 8 (2.5)
 Current smoker 62 (6.0) 3 (3.9) 8 (10.0) 0 (0.0) 12 (3.7)
 Unknown/Not reported 80 (7.2) 7 (8.4) 2 (2.4) 0 (0.0) 16 (4.7)
History of STI (other than HIV) 131 (11.8) 11 (13.3) 16 (19.5) 1 (25.0) 24 (7.0) 0.01
History of HIV 12 (1.1) 1 (1.2) 2 (2.4) 0 (0.0) 3 (0.9) 0.89
Family history of gynecologic cancer 66 (5.9) 8 (9.6) 5 (6.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (6.5) 0.7
All data reported as n (%) unless specified.
HIV indicates human immunodeficiency virus; STI, sexually transmitted infections.

TABLE 2 - Association Between Colposcopy ECC Results to Pap Smear Cytology, HR-HPV Status, and Pathology on Colposcopy
Benign ECC
(n = 1,111)
LSIL ECC
(n = 83)
HSIL ECC
(n = 82)
Others (AIS, AGS) ECC (n = 4) ECC Not Done (n = 341) p
Pap cytology <.001
 NILM 306 (27.5) 17 (20.5) 22 (26.8) 1 (25.0) 119 (34.9)
 ASCUS 332 (30.4) 27 (33.3) 19 (23.5) 0 (0.0) 100 (29.9)
 ASC-H 40 (3.7) 4 (4.9) 10 (12.3) 0 (0.0) 13 (3.9)
 LSIL 367 (33.6) 27 (33.3) 13 (16.0) 0 (0.0) 89 (26.6)
 HSIL 46 (4.2) 7 (8.6) 17 (21.0) 0 (0.0) 18 (5.4)
 AGS 20 (1.8) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 3 (75.0) 2 (0.6)
High-risk HPV 721 (64.9) 55 (66.3) 52 (63.4) 2 (50.0) 196 (57.5) .13
Pathology on colposcopy <.001
 Benign 462 (41.6) 23 (27.7) 14 (17.1) 1 (25.0) 110 (32.3)
 Low-grade 452 (40.7) 48 (57.8) 16 (19.5) 2 (50.0) 153 (44.9)
 High-grade 193 (17.4) 12 (14.5) 52 (63.4) 1 (25.0) 76 (22.3)
 AIS 4 (0.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (0.6)
Excisional procedure (n = 392) <.001
 LEEP 197 (86.8) 21 (95.5) 43 (58.9) 0 (0.0) 60 (90.9)
 CKC 30 (13.2) 1 (4.5) 30 (41.1) 4 (100.0) 6 (91.6)
All data reported as n (%) unless specified.
ASCUS indicates atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.

Incorrect data were also reported in the Results sections in the abstract and main text. In the abstract, the first 2 sentences of the Results should read as follows:

“A total of 1,621 colposcopies were reviewed; 78.9% (n = 1,280) had an ECC with colposcopy. Of those, 86.8% (n = 1,111) had benign ECC whereas 13.2% (n = 169) had a positive ECC at time of colposcopy.”

In the main text, the first 2 paragraphs of the Results section should read as follows:

“A total of 1,621 charts were reviewed, of which 79.0% (n = 1,280) had an ECC completed at time of colposcopy, whereas 21.0% (n = 341) did not have an ECC completed at time of colposcopy. Of those who did not have an ECC completed, 16% (n = 52) of patients were noted to be pregnant, whereas the reason was unknown for the remaining. As seen in Table 1, 86.8% (n = 1,111) of patients had a benign ECC at time of colposcopy, whereas 6.5% (n = 83) of patients had LSIL and 6.4% (n = 82) of patients had HSIL at time of colposcopy. Seventy-seven percent to 72.7% (n = 931) of patients with benign or LSIL on ECC were insured compared with 56% (n = 46) of patients with HSIL (Table 1) (p < .001). When looking at the breakdown of ECC results by ethnicity, non-Hispanic patients had higher rates of benign/LSIL ECC compared with HSIL ECC (97.8% vs 5.8%; p < .001). When looking at Hispanic patients only, Hispanic patients similarly had higher rates of benign/LSIL compared with HSIL on ECC (90.5% vs 9.1%; p < .001); however, Hispanic patients had higher rates of HSIL on ECC compared with non-Hispanic patients (9.1% vs 5.8%; p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference noted in analysis of BMI, age, medical history, immunocompromised state, smoking, and family history when compared with final ECC cytology.

“Table 2 shows the association between ECC results and initial Pap smear cytology and colposcopy pathology results. A total of 27.5% (n = 306) of patients with benign ECC and 26.8% (n = 22) of patients with HSIL on ECC were associated with a finding of negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM) on initial Pap smear cytology (p < .001). Most cases of HSIL on Pap smear cytology were associated with a negative ECC at time of colposcopy (52.3%; n = 46; p < .001); however, 6.4% (n = 22) of patients with NILM on Pap smear cytology had HSIL on ECC. Most patients with benign ECC had benign/LSIL pathology on colposcopy biopsy (82.3%; n = 914; p < .001), and most patients with HSIL on ECC had HSIL on colposcopy biopsy (63.4%; n = 52; p < .001) However, when looking at patients with high-grade pathology on colposcopy biopsy, it was seen that most had benign or LSIL on ECC (79.5%; n = 205; p < .001). Regardless of pathology on ECC, patients who needed an excisional procedure in our study group had higher rates of LEEPs compared with CKCs (87.9% vs 12.1%; p < .001).

The authors regret the errors.

REFERENCE

1. Wang SM, Hoeppner C, Kazma J, et al. Diagnostic utility of endocervical curettage during colposcopy among patients of varying risk factors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2022;26:298–303.
© 2022, ASCCP