Ayhan Atıgan, D. Kiliç, E. Alataş, Yeliz Arman Karakaya, Ö. Güler
{"title":"外阴上皮内瘤变临床病理资料回顾性分析","authors":"Ayhan Atıgan, D. Kiliç, E. Alataş, Yeliz Arman Karakaya, Ö. Güler","doi":"10.29058/mjwbs.1115733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study was designed to retrospectively evaluatethe clinical and pathological data of cases \ndiagnosed with Vulvar Intraepithelial Neoplasia (VIN) in ourclinic. \nMaterial and Methods: 68 patients diagnosed with VIN at Pamukkale University between January 2016 \nand June 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Pathological slides were examined with a microscope. \nSocio demographic data, biopsy and histopathological data of the cases were obtained. Cervical Papsmear, \nHPV and cervical biopsy results taken simultaneously to VIN cases were grouped and evaluated Results: Of the 68 patients included in the study, 48 were low grade (vLSIL) and 20 were high grade (vHSIL). The mean age in the vLSIL \ngroup was 48,60±16,02; gravida 2,54±1,92; parity 2,02±1,60 while; 44,80±14,71; 2,40±1,81; 1,70±1,49 in the vHSIL group, respectively. \nIn the vHSIL group; lesion area (p=0,008), Ki-67 (p=0,001), p53 (p=0,036), p16 (p=0,034) immunohistochemistry staining were statistically \nsignificantly higher. There was no difference in HPV staining (p>0,05). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in \nterms of simultaneous cervical Pap-smear, HPV-pcr and cervical biopsy (p>0,05). \nConclusion: In our study, in accordance with the literature, immunohistochemical markers were found to be higher in the vHSIL group, as \nin cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN) and VIN studies. Although it contains common risk factors with CIN, population-based screening for \nVIN is not yet available. Therefore, the gold standard procedure for diagnosis in the investigation of suspicious vulvar lesions is biopsy. Multi \ncenter advanced studies are needed to create algorithms for the diagnosis and treatment of VIN patients","PeriodicalId":309460,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Western Black Sea","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrospective Analysis of Clinical and Pathological Data of Vulvar IntraepitheliaI Neoplasia Cases\",\"authors\":\"Ayhan Atıgan, D. Kiliç, E. Alataş, Yeliz Arman Karakaya, Ö. Güler\",\"doi\":\"10.29058/mjwbs.1115733\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: This study was designed to retrospectively evaluatethe clinical and pathological data of cases \\ndiagnosed with Vulvar Intraepithelial Neoplasia (VIN) in ourclinic. \\nMaterial and Methods: 68 patients diagnosed with VIN at Pamukkale University between January 2016 \\nand June 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Pathological slides were examined with a microscope. \\nSocio demographic data, biopsy and histopathological data of the cases were obtained. Cervical Papsmear, \\nHPV and cervical biopsy results taken simultaneously to VIN cases were grouped and evaluated Results: Of the 68 patients included in the study, 48 were low grade (vLSIL) and 20 were high grade (vHSIL). The mean age in the vLSIL \\ngroup was 48,60±16,02; gravida 2,54±1,92; parity 2,02±1,60 while; 44,80±14,71; 2,40±1,81; 1,70±1,49 in the vHSIL group, respectively. \\nIn the vHSIL group; lesion area (p=0,008), Ki-67 (p=0,001), p53 (p=0,036), p16 (p=0,034) immunohistochemistry staining were statistically \\nsignificantly higher. There was no difference in HPV staining (p>0,05). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in \\nterms of simultaneous cervical Pap-smear, HPV-pcr and cervical biopsy (p>0,05). \\nConclusion: In our study, in accordance with the literature, immunohistochemical markers were found to be higher in the vHSIL group, as \\nin cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN) and VIN studies. Although it contains common risk factors with CIN, population-based screening for \\nVIN is not yet available. Therefore, the gold standard procedure for diagnosis in the investigation of suspicious vulvar lesions is biopsy. Multi \\ncenter advanced studies are needed to create algorithms for the diagnosis and treatment of VIN patients\",\"PeriodicalId\":309460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Journal of Western Black Sea\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Journal of Western Black Sea\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29058/mjwbs.1115733\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Western Black Sea","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29058/mjwbs.1115733","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Retrospective Analysis of Clinical and Pathological Data of Vulvar IntraepitheliaI Neoplasia Cases
Aim: This study was designed to retrospectively evaluatethe clinical and pathological data of cases
diagnosed with Vulvar Intraepithelial Neoplasia (VIN) in ourclinic.
Material and Methods: 68 patients diagnosed with VIN at Pamukkale University between January 2016
and June 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Pathological slides were examined with a microscope.
Socio demographic data, biopsy and histopathological data of the cases were obtained. Cervical Papsmear,
HPV and cervical biopsy results taken simultaneously to VIN cases were grouped and evaluated Results: Of the 68 patients included in the study, 48 were low grade (vLSIL) and 20 were high grade (vHSIL). The mean age in the vLSIL
group was 48,60±16,02; gravida 2,54±1,92; parity 2,02±1,60 while; 44,80±14,71; 2,40±1,81; 1,70±1,49 in the vHSIL group, respectively.
In the vHSIL group; lesion area (p=0,008), Ki-67 (p=0,001), p53 (p=0,036), p16 (p=0,034) immunohistochemistry staining were statistically
significantly higher. There was no difference in HPV staining (p>0,05). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in
terms of simultaneous cervical Pap-smear, HPV-pcr and cervical biopsy (p>0,05).
Conclusion: In our study, in accordance with the literature, immunohistochemical markers were found to be higher in the vHSIL group, as
in cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN) and VIN studies. Although it contains common risk factors with CIN, population-based screening for
VIN is not yet available. Therefore, the gold standard procedure for diagnosis in the investigation of suspicious vulvar lesions is biopsy. Multi
center advanced studies are needed to create algorithms for the diagnosis and treatment of VIN patients