Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Long-term Outcomes of a Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia in a High Incidence Country

  • Sangkarat, Suthi (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University) ;
  • Ruengkhachorn, Irene (Gynecologic Oncology Division, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University) ;
  • Benjapibal, Mongkol (Gynecologic Oncology Division, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University) ;
  • Laiwejpithaya, Somsak (Gynecologic Cytology Unit, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University) ;
  • Wongthiraporn, Weerasak (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University) ;
  • Rattanachaiyanont, Manee (Gynecologic Endocrinology Unit, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University)
  • Published : 2014.01.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the operative, oncologic and obstetric outcomes of the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) in cases with cervical neoplasia. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who were suspected of cervical neoplasia and therefore undergoing LEEP at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand, during 1995-2000. Outcome measures included operative complications in 407 LEEP patients and long-term outcomes in the 248 patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) who were treated with only LEEP. Results: There were 407 patients undergoing LEEP; their mean age was $39.7{\pm}10.5$ years. The histopathology of LEEP specimens revealed that 89 patients (21.9%) had lesions ${\leq}CIN$ I, 295 patients (72.5%) had CIN II or III, and 23 patients (5.6%) had invasive lesions. Operative complications were found in 15 patients and included bleeding (n=9), and infection (n=7). After diagnostic LEEP, 133 patients underwent hysterectomy as the definite treatment for cervical neoplasia. Of 248 CIN patients who had LEEP only, seven (2.8%) had suffered recurrence after a median of 16 (range 6-93) months; one had CIN I, one had CIN II, and five had CIN III. All of these recurrent patients achieved remission on surgical treatment with re-LEEP (n=6) or simple hysterectomy (n=1). A significant factor affecting recurrent disease was the LEEP margin involved with the lesion (p=0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed 5-year and 10-year disease-free survival (DFS) estimates of 99.9%. Twelve patients became pregnant a total of 14 times, resulting in 12 term deliveries and two miscarriages - one of which was due to an incompetent cervix. Conclusions: LEEP for patients with cervical neoplasia delivers favorable surgical, oncologic and obstetric outcomes.

Keywords

References

  1. Acharya G, Kjeldberg I, Hansen SM, et al (2005). Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 272, 109-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-005-0727-1
  2. Alvarez RD, Helm CW, Edwards RP, et al (1994). Prospective randomized trial of LLETZ versus laser ablation in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol, 52, 175-9. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1027
  3. Ayhan A, Boynukalin FK, Guven S, et al (2009). Repeat LEEP conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and positive ectocervicalmargins. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 105, 14-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.11.015
  4. Bevis KS, Biggio JR (2011). Cervical conization and the risk of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 205, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.01.003
  5. Dey P, Gibbs A, Arnold DF, et al (2002). Loop diathermy excision compared with cervical laservaporisation for the treatment of intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG, 109, 381-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01277.x
  6. Giacalone PL, Laffargue F, Aligier N, et al (1999). Randomized study comparing two techniques of conization: cold knife versus loop excision. Gynecol Oncol, 75, 356-60. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1999.5626
  7. Kietpeerakool C, Khunamornpong S, Srisomboon J, et al (2007). 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, 33, 660-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00628.x
  8. Kir G, Karabulut MH, Topal CS, et al (2012).Endocervical glandular involvement, positive endocervical surgical margin and multicentricity are more often associated with high-grade than low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 38, 1206-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2012.01847.x
  9. Lodi CT, Michelin MA, Lima MI, et al (2011). Factors associated with recurrence of cervical intraepithelialneoplasia after conization in HIV-infected and noninfected women. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 284, 191-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1611-1
  10. Luesley D, Leeson S (2004). Guidelines for the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. 1st ed. Sheffield, UK: NHSCSP2004.
  11. Mathevet P, Chemali E, Roy M, et al (2003). Long-term outcome of a randomized study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 106, 214-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00245-2
  12. Mathevet P, Dargent D, Roy M, et al (1994). A randomized prospective study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Gynecol Oncol, 54, 175-9. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1994.1189
  13. Pecorelli S (2009). Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 105, 103-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012
  14. Prendiville W, Cullimore J, Norman S (1989). Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ).A new method of management for women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 96, 1054-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03380.x
  15. Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W, et al (2004). Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA, 291, 2100-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.17.2100
  16. Shin JW, Rho HS, Park CY (2009). Factors influencing the choice between cold knife conization and loop electrosurgical excisional procedure for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 35, 126-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00834.x
  17. Sjoborg KD, Vistad I, Myhr SS, et al (2007). Pregnancy outcome after cervical cone excision: a case-control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 86, 423-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038120701208158
  18. Reich O, Pickel H, Lahousen M, et al (2001). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III: long-term outcome after coldknife conization with clear margins. Obstet Gynecol, 97, 428-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(00)01174-1
  19. Wright TC Jr, Richart RM, Ferenczy A, et al (1992). Comparison of specimens removed by CO2 laser conization and the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Obstet Gynecol, 79, 147-53.
  20. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al (2007).2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical screening tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis, 11, 201-22. https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0b013e3181585870
  21. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al (2007).2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. J Low Genit Tract Dis, 11, 223-39. https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0b013e318159408b

Cited by

  1. Comparison of Recurrence Rates with Contour-Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (C-LETZ) and Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ) for CIN vol.15, pp.15, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.15.6005
  2. Application of HPV DNA Testing in Follow-up after Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedures in Northern Thailand vol.16, pp.14, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.14.6093
  3. Triage for management of cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion patients with positive margin by conization: a retrospective analysis vol.11, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-017-0517-8
  4. Low recurrence rate of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after successful excision and routine colposcopy during follow-up vol.97, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009719