Search

The most recent guidelines for colposcopy practice in the United States, the 2017 Colposcopy Standards Consensus Guidelines, did not include recommendations for endocervical curettage (ECC). This document provides updated guidelines for use of ECC among patients referred for colposcopy.Consensus guidelines for the use of ECC were developed in 2012. To update these guidelines in concordance with the 2017 Colposcopy Standards process, an expert workgroup was convened in 2021. Literature had been previously reviewed through 2011, before the 2012 guideline. Literature from the years 2012-2021 and data from the NCI Biopsy study were reviewed, focusing on the additional yield of ECC.Endocervical curettage is recommended for patients with high-grade cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18 infection, positive results on dual staining for p16/Ki67, for those previously treated for known or suspected cervical precancer or considering observation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, and when the squamocolumnar junction is not fully visualized at colposcopy. Endocervical curettage is preferred for all patients aged older than 40 years. Endocervical curettage is acceptable for all nonpregnant patients undergoing colposcopy but may be omitted when a subsequent excisional procedure is planned, the endocervical canal does not admit a sampling device, or in nulliparous patients aged younger than 30 years, with cytology reported as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion regardless of whether the squamocolumnar junction is fully visualized. Endocervical curettage is unacceptable in pregnancy.These guidelines for ECC add to the 2017 consensus recommendations for colposcopy practice in the United States.

Introduction: We sought to determine if an educational intervention about HIV risk alters HIV risk self-perception and interest in Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in Obstetrics & Gynecology clinics. Methods: Demographic information, risk behaviors, HIV knowledge and risk self-assessment were collected via a self-administered survey. Participants viewed a written educational intervention and completed a post-intervention survey. HIV risk self-perception and interest in PrEP were compared before and after the intervention. Results: 170 participants were included. 85 of participants (50.0%) were interested in PrEP at baseline. Pre-intervention HIV risk self-perception was associated with interest in PrEP (p=0.01). After administration of the educational intervention, knowledge of risk factors and the number of those who perceived themselves to be at risk of HIV increased (pConclusions: Interest in PrEP was associated with HIV risk self-perception and a written educational intervention increased knowledge of HIV risk factors.