Prognostic significance of high-risk HPV persistence after laser CO2 conization for high-grade CIN: a prospective clinical study

Purpose of investigation: To estimate the persistence rate of high-risk HPV DNA (HR-HPV DNA) in a population treated totally by laser CO. conization for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (HG-CIN), and to examine if this persistence might be considered an independent risk factor for relapsing disease. Methods. All women with a histological diagnosis of HG-CIN and planned for laser CO, conization from January 2003 to December 2004 were prospectively submitted to a HR-HPV test prior to surgery and at three and six months of follow-up. Women providing written informed consent with 24 months of follow-up were enrolled in the study group. A positive HPV test, involvement of resection margins, age at first intercourse, smoking habits, parity and age at conization > 50 years old were considered as risk factors for relapsing HG-CIN during follow-up, and were univariately and multivariately analyzed to discover any independent influencing factors. Results: Of HG-CIN 15.4% resulted not to be HPV related nor relapsing. The HPV clearance rate after treatment was 78.8%. Involvement of resection margins and HR-HPV DNA persistence post-treatment resulted as the only two statistically significant risk factors for HG-CIN recurrence (rate 3.8%). HR-HPV DNA persistence in follow-up resulted to be independent from other risk factors at multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Although able to reach a low recurrence rate of HG-CIN, laser CO, conization does not remove HPV infection completely from the cervix with a case of persistence in every five treated patients. In our experience this persistence in itself represents an independent risk factor for developing relapsing disease and constitutes the basis to introduce HPV testing even in the follow-up of patients treated for HG-CIN by laser CO, conization.

Laser CO2 conization; HPV persistence; Recurrent CIN

[1] Pinto A.V., Crump C.P.: “Natural history of cervical neoplasia: defining progression and its consequences”. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol., 2000, 43, 352.

[2] Soutter W.P., de Barros Lopes A., Fletcher A., Monaghan J.M., Duncen I.D., Paraskevaidis E. et al.: “Invasive cervical cancer after conservative therapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Lancet, 1997, 349, 978.

[3] Kreimer A.R., Guido R.S., Solomon D., Schiffman M., Wacholder S., Jeronimo J. et al.: “Humen papillomavirus testing following loop electrosurgical excision procedure identifies women at risk for posttreatment cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 disease”. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomer Prev., 2006, 15, 908.

[4] Syrjanen K.J.: “Spontaneous evolution of intraepithelial lesions according to the grade and type of implicated human papillomavirus”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 1996, 1, 45.

[5] Wright T.C., Cox J.T., Massad L.S., Carlson J., Twiggs L.B., Wilkinson E.J.: “2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2003, 189, 295.

[6] Alonso I., Tornè A., Puig-Tintorè L.M., Esteve R., Quinto L., Campo E. et al.: “Pre- and post conization high risk HPV testing predicts residual/recurrent disease in patients treated for CIN 2-3”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2006, 103, 631.

[7] Costa S., De Simone P., Venturoli S., Cricca M., Zerbini M.L., Musiani M. et al.: “Factors predicting human papillomavirus clearance in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia lesions treated by conization”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2003, 90, 358.

[8] Nagai Y., Maehama T., Asato T., Kanazawa K.: “Persistence of human papillomavirus infection after therapeutic conization for CIN III: is it an alarm for disease recurrence?”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2000, 79, 294.

[9] Elfgren K., Bistoletti P., Dillner L., Walboomers J.M., Meijer C.J., Dillner J.: “Conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is followed by disappearance of human papilloma DNA and a decline in serum and cervical mucus antibodies against himan papillomavirus antigens”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1996, 174, 937.

[10] Kucera E., Sliutz G., Czerwenka K., Breitenecker G., Leodolter S., Reinthaller A.: “Is high-risk human papillomavirus infection associated with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia eliminated after conization by largeloop excision of the transformation zone?”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2001, 100, 72.

[11] Distefano A.L., Picconi M.A., Alonio L.V., Dalbert D., Mural J., Bartt O. et al.: “Persistence of human papillomavirus DNA in cervical lesions after treatment with diathermic large loop excision”. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol., 1998, 6, 214.

[12] Bollen L.J., Tjong-A-Hung S.P., van der Velden J., Mol B.W., Boer K., tenKate F.J. et al.: “Clearance of cervical human papillomavirus infection by treatment for cervical dysplasia”. Sex Transm. Dis., 1997, 24, 456.

[13] Skjeldestad F.E., Hagen B., Lie A.K., Isaksen C.: “Residual and recurrent disease after laser conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1997, 90, 428.

[14] Paraskevaidis E., Lolis E.D., Koliopoulos G., Alamanos Y., Fotiou S., Kitchener H.C.: “Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after large loop excision with clear margins”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2000, 95, 828.

[15] Bar-Am A., Daniel Y., Ron I.G., Niv J., Kupferminc M.J., Bornstein J. et al.: “Combined colposcopy, loop conization, and laser vaporization reduces recurrent abnormal cytology and residual disease in cervical dysplasia”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2000, 78, 47.

[16] Bodner K., Bodner-Adler B., Wierrani F., Kimberger O., Denk C., Grunberger W.: “Is therapeutic conization sufficient to eliminate a high risk HPV infection of the uterine cervix? A clinicopathological analysis”. Anticancer Res., 2002, 22, 3733.

[17] Verguts J., Bronselaer B., Donders G., Arbyn M., Van Eldere J., Drijkoningen M. et al.: “Prediction of recurrence after treatment for high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the role of human papillomavirus testing and age at conisation”. Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2006, 113, 1303.

[18] Paraskevaidis E., Koliopoulos G., Alamanos Y., Malamou-Mitsi V., Lolis E.D., Kitchener H.C.: “Human papillomavirus testing and the outcome of treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2001, 98, 833.

[19] Zielinski G.D., Bais A.G., Helmerhorst T.J., Verheijen R.H., de Schipper F.A., Snijders P.J.F. et al.: “HPV testing and monitoring of women after treatment of CIN 3: review of the literature and meta-analysis”. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv., 2004, 59, 543.

[20] Jain S., Tseng C.J., Horng S.G., Soong Y.K., Pao C.C.: “Negative predictive value of human papillomavirus test following conization of the cervix uteri”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2001, 82, 177.

[21] Sarian L.O., Derchain S.F., Pittal Dda R., Morais S.S., Rabelo-Santos S.H.: “Factors associated with HPV persistence after treatment for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia with large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ)”. J. Clin. Virol., 2004, 31, 270.

[22] Chua K.L., Hjerpe A.: “Human papillomavirus analysis as a prognostic marker following conization of the cervix uteri”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1997, 66, 108.

[23] Gok M., Coupe V.M., Berkhof J., Verheijen R.H., Helmerhorst T.J., Hogewoning C.J. et al.: “HPV 16 and increased risk of recurrence after treatment for CIN”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2007, 104, 273.

[24] Paraskevaidis E., Arbyn M., Sotiriadis A., Diakomanolis E., Martin-Hirsch P., Koliopoulos G. et al.: “The role of HPV DNA testing in the follow-up period after treatment for CIN: a systematic review of the literature”. Cancer Treat. Rev., 2004, 30, 205.