Extensive lesions and a positive cone margin are strong predictors of residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy following conization for squamous intraepithelial lesion grade 2 or 3 study design.
Cervical conization
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
Extensive lesions
Margin involvement
Residual lesions
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 08 2023
28 08 2023
Historique:
received:
20
04
2023
accepted:
24
07
2023
medline:
31
8
2023
pubmed:
29
8
2023
entrez:
28
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to determine the predictive factors for post-conization of residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3. This retrospective study included 267 patients with histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 who underwent hysterectomy within 7 months after conization. Clinical data (e.g., age, menopausal status, gravidity, parity, type of transformation zone, conization method) as well as pathological data pertaining to conization and hysterectomy were collected from medical records. A logistic regression model was used to analyze the relationship between the variables and risk of residual lesions in hysterectomy samples. Overall, 70 (26.2%) patients had residual lesions in their hysterectomy specimens. Univariate analyses revealed that age ≥ 50 years (p=0.019), endocervical gland involvement(p=0.013), positive margin(p < 0.001), and involvement of 3-4 quadrants(p < 0.001) were risk factors for residual lesions. Conversely, postmenopausal status, gravidity ≥ 3, parity ≥ 2, loop electrosurgical excision procedure, and type III transformation zone were not risk factors for residual lesions. A positive margin(p < 0.001) and multiple-quadrant involvement(p < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for residual lesions on multivariate analysis. Multiple-quadrant involvement and a positive cone margin were reliable predictive factors for residual disease. Total hysterectomy or repeated cervical conization should be considered for patients with these two risk factors. The identification of high-risk patients with extensive lesions by colposcopic examination before conization is indispensable, as it will enable surgeons to perform conization with consideration of risk factors and possibly improve the approach used for the excisional procedure. For high-risk patients, colposcope-guided cold-knife conization is preferred when resources permit.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to determine the predictive factors for post-conization of residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3.
METHODS
This retrospective study included 267 patients with histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 who underwent hysterectomy within 7 months after conization. Clinical data (e.g., age, menopausal status, gravidity, parity, type of transformation zone, conization method) as well as pathological data pertaining to conization and hysterectomy were collected from medical records. A logistic regression model was used to analyze the relationship between the variables and risk of residual lesions in hysterectomy samples.
RESULTS
Overall, 70 (26.2%) patients had residual lesions in their hysterectomy specimens. Univariate analyses revealed that age ≥ 50 years (p=0.019), endocervical gland involvement(p=0.013), positive margin(p < 0.001), and involvement of 3-4 quadrants(p < 0.001) were risk factors for residual lesions. Conversely, postmenopausal status, gravidity ≥ 3, parity ≥ 2, loop electrosurgical excision procedure, and type III transformation zone were not risk factors for residual lesions. A positive margin(p < 0.001) and multiple-quadrant involvement(p < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for residual lesions on multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Multiple-quadrant involvement and a positive cone margin were reliable predictive factors for residual disease. Total hysterectomy or repeated cervical conization should be considered for patients with these two risk factors. The identification of high-risk patients with extensive lesions by colposcopic examination before conization is indispensable, as it will enable surgeons to perform conization with consideration of risk factors and possibly improve the approach used for the excisional procedure. For high-risk patients, colposcope-guided cold-knife conization is preferred when resources permit.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37641051
doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02568-w
pii: 10.1186/s12905-023-02568-w
pmc: PMC10464471
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
454Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2007 Oct;33(5):660-4
pubmed: 17845326
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010 Nov;36(11):1073-9
pubmed: 20870375
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Oct;24(4):427
pubmed: 32732649
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;222(2):172.e1-172.e12
pubmed: 31473226
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Oct;107(1):39-44
pubmed: 17582476
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2019 Jan 25;54(1):19-23
pubmed: 30695901
Int J Gen Med. 2020 Nov 10;13:1067-1074
pubmed: 33204141
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015 May 21;11:851-6
pubmed: 26056463
Z Gesundh Wiss. 2010 Oct;18(5):473-482
pubmed: 21151479
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 16;14(12):e0226261
pubmed: 31841543
Int J Cancer. 2018 May 1;142(9):1759-1766
pubmed: 29218720
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023 Apr;161(1):137-143
pubmed: 36263898
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022 Jan;156(1):159-165
pubmed: 33759181
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2018 Oct;22(4):367-374
pubmed: 29957657
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Dec;18(12):1665-1679
pubmed: 29126708
Transl Cancer Res. 2022 Jun;11(6):1762-1769
pubmed: 35836541
Mod Pathol. 1999 Mar;12(3):233-8
pubmed: 10102607
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2017 Jan;21(1):59-63
pubmed: 27824789
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2003 Jan;7(1):32-5
pubmed: 17051042
BMC Womens Health. 2021 May 7;21(1):191
pubmed: 33962590
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24(2):102-131
pubmed: 32243307
Sci Rep. 2021 Dec 2;11(1):23288
pubmed: 34857803
Cancers (Basel). 2023 May 23;15(11):
pubmed: 37296839
BMC Womens Health. 2022 Aug 30;22(1):358
pubmed: 36042513
J Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Sep;27(5):e54
pubmed: 27401478
J Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Jan;27(1):e2
pubmed: 26463431
Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Nov 30;23(23):
pubmed: 36499345
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Oct;97(41):e12792
pubmed: 30313104
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Dec 27;22(1):971
pubmed: 36575366
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2022 Jul 1;26(3):207-211
pubmed: 35314587
Oncol Res Treat. 2020;43(10):518-525
pubmed: 32772026
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023 Feb;160(2):538-547
pubmed: 35810389
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022 Dec;159(3):679-688
pubmed: 35474511
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Jun;57(6):695-713
pubmed: 15151515
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2019 Jan;23(1):18-23
pubmed: 30085949
Histopathology. 2020 Jan;76(1):112-127
pubmed: 31846527
J Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Sep;32(5):e68
pubmed: 34132067
BJOG. 2020 Feb;127(3):377-387
pubmed: 31631477
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2015 Apr;19(2):115-8
pubmed: 25259663
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Dec;135(3):468-73
pubmed: 25284039
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016 Apr;42(4):457-63
pubmed: 26786387
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 4;14(6):e0217562
pubmed: 31163055
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Aug;173(2):361-6; discussion 366-8
pubmed: 7645609