Complications of laser conization versus loop electrosurgical excision procedure in pre- and postmenopausal patients

Purpose of investigation: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the results and complications of laser conization and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP), performed for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or microinvasive carcinoma, between postmenopausal and premenopausal patients. Material and Methods: This study recruited a total of 551 patients. In the laser group (n = 405), there were 361 (89.1%) premenopausal and 44 (10.9%) postmenopausal women. In the LEEP group (n = 146), there were 129 (88.4%) premenopausal and 17 (11.6%) postmenopausal women. The factors investigated in both groups were the length of the tissue cone removed and the presence of positive endocervical cone margins, residual disease, and cervical stenosis. Results: In the laser group, the length of the tissue cone was significantly longer in postmenopausal patients (17.9 ± 3.9 mm vs. 15.7 ± 3.6mm; p = 0.002). The rate of positive endocervical margins was significantly higher in premenopausal patients (9.1% vs. 0%; p = 0.037). The rate of cervical stenosis was significantly higher in postmenopausal patients (59.1% vs. 8.3%; p < 0.0001). In the LEEP group, there were no differences in the length of the tissue cone (premenopausal, 11.7 ± 1.9 mm vs. postmenopausal, 11.4 ± 2.7 mm; p = 0.12), the rate of positive endocervical margins (24.0% vs. 17.6%), or the rate of residual disease (13.2% vs. 17.6%). The rate of cervical stenosis was significantly higher in postmenopausal patients (23.5% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.002); however this rate was significantly lower than that seen in the laser group. Conclusion: In postmenopausal patients, the rates of positive endocervical cone margins and of residual disease were higher in the LEEP group; however, the rate of cervical stenosis was higher in the laser group. Physicians should be aware of the characteristics of the devices used for cervical conization in postmenopausal women with CIN.

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervical conization; Postmenopause; Premenopause; Complications; Laser conization; Loop electrosurgical excision procedure.

[1] Strander B., Hällgren J., Sparén P.: “Effect of ageing on cervical or vaginal cancer in Swedish women previously treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3: population based cohort study of long term incidence and mortality”. BMJ, 2014, 348, f7361.

[2] Ueda M., Ueki K, Kanemura M., Izuma S., Yamaguchi H.,Nishiyama K., et al.: “Diagnostic and therapeutic laser conizatio n for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2006, 101,143.

[3] Yamaguchi H., Ueda M., Kanemura M., Izuma S., Nishiyama K., Tanaka Y., Noda :S”. Clinical efficacy of conservative laser therapy for early-stage cervical cancer”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2007, 17, 455.

[4] Bae H.S., Chung Y.W., Kim T., Lee K.W., Song J.Y.: “The appropriate cone depth to avoid endocervical margin involvement is dependent on age and disease severity”. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand., 2013, 92, 185.

[5] Shaco-Levy R., Eger G., Dreiher J., Benharroch D., Meirovitz M.: “Positive margin status in uterine cervix cone specimens is associated with persistent/ recurrent high-grade dysplasia”. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol., 2013, 33, 83.

[6] Costa S., De Nuzzo M., Terzano P., Santini D., De Simone P., Bovicelli A., et al.: “Factors associated with cone margin involvement in CIN patients undergoing conization-equivalent electrosurgical procedure”. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand., 2000, 79, 586.

[7] Moore B.C., Higgins R.V., Laurent S.L., Marroum M.C., Bellitt P.: “Predictive factors from cold knife conization for residual cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in subsequent hysterectomy”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1995, 173, 361.

[8] Kalogirou D., Antoniou G., Karakitsos P., Botsis D., Kalogirou O., Giannikos L.: “Predictive factors used to justify hysterectomy after loop conization: increasing age and severity of disease”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 1997, 18, 113.

[9] Mohamed-Noor K., Quinn M.A., Tan J.: “Outcomes after cervical cold knife conization with complete and incomplete excision of abnormal epithelium: a review of 699 cases”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1997, 67, 34.

[10] Husseinzadeh N., Shbaro I., Wesseler T.: “Predictive value of cone margins and post-cone endocervical curettage with residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1989, 33, 198.

[11] Lapaquette T.K., Dinh T.V., Hannigan E.V., Doherty M.G., Yandell R.B., Buchanan V.S.: “Management of patients with positive margins after cervical conization”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1993, 82, 440.

[12] Livasy C.A.,Maygarden S.J., Rajaratnam C.T., Novotny D.B.: “Predictors of recurrent dysplasia after a cervical loop electrocautery excision procedure for CIN-3: a study of margin, endocervical gland, and quadrant involvement”. Mod. Pathol., 1999, 12, 233.

[13] Phelps J.Y. 3rd., Ward J.A., Szigeti J. 2nd., Bowland C.H., Mayer A.R.: “Cervical cone margins as a predictor for residual dysplasia in post-cone hysterectomy specimens”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1994, 84, 128.

[14] Lu C.H., Liu F.S., Kuo C.J., Chang C.C., Ho E.S.: “Prediction of persistence or recurrence after conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2006, 107, 830.

[15] 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, 660.

[16] Ghaem-Maghami S., Sagi S., Majeed G., Soutter W.P.: “Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis”. Lancet Oncol., 2007, 8, 985.

[17] Ramchandani S.M., Houck K.L., Hernandez E., Gaughan J.P.: “Predicting persistent/recurrent disease in the cervix after excisional biopsy”. MedGenMed., 2007, 9, 24.

[18] Park J.Y., Lee S.M., Yoo C.W., Kang S., Park S.Y., Seo S.S.: “Risk factors predicting residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy following conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) III and microinvasive cervical cancer”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2007, 107, 39.

[19] Ryu A., Nam K., Kwak J., Kim J., Jeon S.: “Early human papillomavirus testing predicts residual/recurrent disease after LEEP”. J. Gynecol. Oncol., 2012, 23, 217.

[20] Mathevet P., Chemali E., Roy M., Dargent D.: “Long-term outcome of a randomized study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2003, 106, 214.

[21] Brun J.L., Youbi A., Hocké C.J.: “Complications, sequellae and outcome of cervical conizations: evaluation of three surgical technics”. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod., 2002, 31, 558.

[22] Baldauf J.J., Dreyfus M., Ritter J., Meyer P., Philippe E.: “Risk of cervical stenosis after large loop excision or laser conization”. Obstet. Gynecol., 1996, 88, 933.

[23] Penna C., Fambrini M., Fallani M.G., Pieralli A., Scarselli G., Marchionni M.: “Laser CO2 conization in postmenopausal age: risk of cervical stenosis and unsatisfactory follow-up”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2005, 96, 771.

[24] Houlard S., Perrotin F., Fourquet F., Marret H., Lansac J., Body G.: “Risk factors for cervical stenosis after laser cone biopsy”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2002, 104, 144.

[25] Monteiro A.C., Russomano F.B., Camargo M.J., Silva K.S., Veiga F.R., Oliveira R.G.: “Cervical stenosis following electrosurgical conization”. Sao Paulo Med J., 2008, 126, 209.

[26] Suh-Burgmann E.J., Whall-Strojwas D., Chang Y., Hundley D., Goodman A.: “Risk factors for cervical stenosis after loop electrocautery excision procedure”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2000, 96, 657.

[27] Boulanger J.C., Gondry J., Verhoest P., Capsie C., Najas S.: “Treatment of CIN after menopause”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod.Biol., 2001, 95, 175.

[28] Soutter W.P., Sasieni P., Panoskaltsis T.: “Long-term risk of invasive cervical cancer after treatment of squamous cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Int. J. Cancer, 2006, 118, 2048.