Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.2.1035

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)
Publication Information
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention / v.15, no.2, 2014 , pp. 1035-1039 More about this Journal
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
Cervical neoplasia; loop electrosurgical excision procedure; outcomes; Thailand;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Luesley D, Leeson S (2004). Guidelines for the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. 1st ed. Sheffield, UK: NHSCSP2004.
5 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Pecorelli S (2009). Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 105, 103-4.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Bevis KS, Biggio JR (2011). Cervical conization and the risk of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 205, 19-27.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 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.   DOI
14 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.   DOI
15 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W, et al (2004). Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA, 291, 2100-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 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.
19 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 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.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 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.   DOI