Advertisement

Frontiers of Medicine

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 223–228 | Cite as

Triage for management of cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion patients with positive margin by conization: a retrospective analysis

  • Yuya Dou
  • Xiaodan Zhang
  • Yang Li
  • Fenfen Wang
  • Xing Xie
  • Xinyu Wang
Research Article

Abstract

The objective of this study is to guide a triage for the management of cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) patients with positive margin by conization. Clinico-pathological data of HSIL patients with positive margin by conization were retrospectively collected from January 2009 to December 2014. All patients underwent secondary conization or hysterectomy within 6 months. The rate of residual lesion was calculated, and the factors associated with residual lesion were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Among a total of 119 patients, 56 (47.06%) patients presented residual HSIL in their subsequent surgical specimens, including 4 cases of invasive cervical carcinoma (3 stage IA1 and 1 stage IA2 patients). Univariate analysis showed that patient age > 35 years (P = 0.005), menopausal period > 5 years (P = 0.0035), and multiple-quadrant involvement (P = 0.001) were significantly correlated with residual disease; however, multivariate analysis revealed that multiple-quadrant involvement (P = 0.001; OR, 3.701; 95%CI, 1.496–9.154) was an independent risk factor for residual disease. Nearly half of HSIL patients with positive margin by conization were disease-free in subsequent surgical specimens, and those with multiple positive margins may consider reconization or re-assessment.

Keywords

cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion conization positive surgical margin hysterectomy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the doctors and nurses at the Women’s Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, for providing the clinical information and grants supported by the Foundation of Science and Technology Department of Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China (Nos. 2012C13019-3 and N20130174), Special Fund for Scientific Research in the Public Interest from the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China (No. 201402010), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos.81672568 and 81302248).

References

  1. 1.
    Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, Hamavid H, Moradi-Lakeh M, MacIntyre MF, Allen C, Hansen G, Woodbrook R, Wolfe C, Hamadeh RR, Moore A, Werdecker A, Gessner BD, Te Ao B, McMahon B, Karimkhani C, Yu C, Cooke GS, Schwebel DC, Carpenter DO, Pereira DM, Nash D, Kazi DS, De Leo D, Plass D, Ukwaja KN, Thurston GD, Yun Jin K, Simard EP, Mills E, Park EK, Catalá-López F, deVeber G, Gotay C, Khan G, Hosgood HD III, Santos IS, Leasher JL, Singh J, Leigh J, Jonas JB, Sanabria J, Beardsley J, Jacobsen KH, Takahashi K, Franklin RC, Ronfani L, Montico M, Naldi L, Tonelli M, Geleijnse J, Petzold M, Shrime MG, Younis M, Yonemoto N, Breitborde N, Yip P, Pourmalek F, Lotufo PA, Esteghamati A, Hankey GJ, Ali R, Lunevicius R, Malekzadeh R, Dellavalle R, Weintraub R, Lucas R, Hay R, Rojas-Rueda D, Westerman R, Sepanlou SG, Nolte S, Patten S, Weichenthal S, Abera SF, Fereshtehnejad SM, Shiue I, Driscoll T, Vasankari T, Alsharif U, Rahimi-Movaghar V, Vlassov VV, Marcenes WS, Mekonnen W, Melaku YA, Yano Y, Artaman A, Campos I, MacLachlan J, Mueller U, Kim D, Trillini M, Eshrati B, Williams HC, Shibuya K, Dandona R, Murthy K, Cowie B, Amare AT, Antonio CA, Castañeda-Orjuela C, van Gool CH, Violante F, Oh IH, Deribe K, Soreide K, Knibbs L, Kereselidze M, Green M, Cardenas R, Roy N, Tillmann T, Li Y, Krueger H, Monasta L, Dey S, Sheikhbahaei S, Hafezi-Nejad N, Kumar GA, Sreeramareddy CT, Dandona L, Wang H, Vollset SE, Mokdad A, Salomon JA, Lozano R, Vos T, Forouzanfar M, Lopez A, Murray C, Naghavi M; Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration. The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1(4): 505–527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Bosch FX, Franco E. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96(8): 604–615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tasci T, Turan T, Ureyen I, Karalok A, Kalyoncu R, Boran N, Tulunay G. Is there any predictor for residual disease after cervical conization with positive surgical margins for HSIL or microinvasive cervical cancer? J Low Genit Tract Dis 2015; 19(2): 115–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghaem-Maghami S, Sagi S, Majeed G, Soutter WP. Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8(11): 985–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chambo Filho A, Garbeloto E, Guarconi JR, Partele MP. Positive endocervical margins at conization: repeat conization or colposcopic follow-up? a retrospective study. J Clin Med Res 2015; 7(7): 540–544CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    dos Santos Melli PP, Duarte G, Quintana SM. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for the persistence of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions following loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016; 133(2): 234–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fonseca FV, Tomasich FD, Jung JE. High-grade intraepithelial cervical lesions: evaluation of the factors determining an unfavorable outcome after conization. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2011; 33(11): 334–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oliveira CA, Russomano FB, Gomes Júnior SC, Corrêa FM. Risk of persistent high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion after electrosurgical excisional treatment with positive margins: a meta-analysis. Sao Paulo Med J 2012; 130(2): 119–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tan XJ, Wu M, Lang JH, Ma SQ, Shen K, Yang J. Predictors of residual lesion in cervix after conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and microinvasive cervical cancer. Natl Med J China (Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi) 2009; 89(6): 17–20(in Chinese)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andrade CE, Scapulatempo-Neto C, Longatto-Filho A, Vieira MA, Tsunoda AT, Da Silva ID, Fregnani JH. Prognostic scores after surgical treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a proposed model and possible implications for post-operative follow-up. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014; 93(9): 941–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Del Mistro A, Matteucci M, Insacco EA, Onnis GL, Da Re F, Baboci L, Zorzi M, Minucci D. Long-term clinical outcome after treatment for high-grade cervical lesions: a retrospective monoinstitutional cohort study. BioMed Res Int 2015; 2015:984528PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sangkarat S, Ruengkhachorn I, Benjapibal M, Laiwejpithaya S, Wongthiraporn W, Rattanachaiyanont M. Long-term outcomes of a loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in a high incidence country. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15(2): 1035–1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ryu A, Nam K, Chung S, Kim J, Lee H, Koh E, Bae D. Absence of dysplasia in the excised cervix by a loop electrosurgical excision procedure in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Gynecol Oncol 2010; 21(2): 87–92CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu J, Jia Y, Luo M, Duan Z. Analysis of residual/recurrent disease and its risk factors after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2016; 81(4): 296–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramchandani SM, Houck KL, Hernandez E, Gaughan JP. Predicting persistent/recurrent disease in the cervix after excisional biopsy. MedGenMed 2007; 9(2): S1–24Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, Katki HA, Kinney WK, Schiffman M, Solomon D, Wentzensen N, Lawson HW. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013; 17(5): S1–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kietpeerakool C, Khunamornpong S, Srisomboon J, Siriaunkgul S, Suprasert P. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II–III with endocervical cone margin involvement after cervical loop conization: is there any predictor for residual disease? J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2007; 33(5): 660–664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fu Y, Chen C, Feng S, Cheng X, Wang X, Xie X, Lü W. Residual disease and risk factors in patients with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and positive margins after initial conization. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2015; 11: 851–856CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siriaree S, Srisomboon J, Kietpeerakool C, Khunamornpong S, Siriaunkgul S, Natpratan A, Pratheapjarus S, Futemwong A, Chantarasenawong U. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with endocervical cone margin involvement after cervical loop electrosurgical excision: what should a clinician do? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2006; 7(3): 463–466PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Verguts J, Bronselaer B, Donders G, Arbyn M, Van Eldere J, Drijkoningen M, Poppe W. Prediction of recurrence after treatment for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the role of human papillomavirus testing and age at conisation. BJOG 2006; 113(11): 1303–1307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jordan JA. Symposium on cervical neoplasia I. Excisional methods. J Gynecol Surg 2009; 1(4): 271–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leiman G, Harrison NA, Rubin A. Pregnancy following conization of the cervix: complications related to cone size. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 136(1): 14–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luesley DM, Mccrum A, Terry PB, Wade-Evans T, Nicholson HO, Mylotte MJ, Emens JM, Jordan JA. Complications of cone biopsy related to the dimensions of the cone and the influence of prior colposcopic assessment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92(2): 158–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Castanon A, Brocklehurst P, Evans H, Peebles D, Singh N, Walker P, Patnick J, Sasieni P. Risk of preterm birth after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia among women attending colposcopy in England: retrospective prospective cohort study. BMJ 2012; 345:e5174CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kyrgiou M, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Paraskevaidis E. Increased risk of preterm birth after treatment for CIN. BMJ 2012; 345(3): 195–204Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bruinsma F, Lumley J, Tan J, Quinn M. Precancerous changes in the cervix and risk of subsequent preterm birth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 114(1): 70–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Esmyot ML, Mahran M, Worcester B, Chan M, Patil D, Kiani M, Chidothe N. Cervical surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and prolonged time to conception of a live birth: a case-control study. BJOG 2013; 120 (8): 960–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ayhan A, Tuncer HA, Reyhan NH, Kuscu E, Dursun P. Risk factors for residual disease after cervical conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 and positive surgical margins. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 201: 1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhu MH, He Y, Baak JP, Zhou XR, Qu YQ, Sui L, Feng WW, Wang Q. Factors that influence persistence or recurrence of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with positive margins after the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a retrospective study. BMC Cancer 2015; 15(1): 744–754CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kang WD, Ju UC, Mo KS. A human papillomavirus HPV-16 or HPV-18 genotype is a reliable predictor of residual disease in a subsequent hysterectomy following a loop electro-surgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3. J Gynecol Oncol 2015; 275(35): 27221–27228Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Diaz ES, Aoyama C, Baquing MA, Beavis A, Silva E, Holschneider C, Cass I. Predictors of residual carcinoma or carcinoma-in-situ at hysterectomy following cervical conization with positive margins. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 132(1): 76–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuya Dou
    • 1
    • 3
  • Xiaodan Zhang
    • 1
    • 4
  • Yang Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fenfen Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xing Xie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xinyu Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Women’s HospitalZhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Women’s Reproductive Health of Zhejiang Province, Women’s HospitalZhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Southwest HospitalThird Military Medical UniversityChongqingChina
  4. 4.Ningbo No.2 HospitalNingboChina

Personalised recommendations