“See and treat” LEEP biopsy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3

Purpose of investigation: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) biopsy using a “seeand- treat” strategy, and compare outcomes after “LEEP biopsy, inpatient LEEP and ablation, and inpatient conization with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2/3. Materials and Methods: The authors performed a retrospective study including 300 women with CIN2/3 who were followed up ≥ 6 months following outpatient LEEP/inpatient LEEP and ablation/inpatient conization. Recurrence, additional treatment for recurrence, pregnancy, and term delivery following treatment were evaluated. Results: During the median follow-up duration of 22 months, recurrences were significantly more common following LEEP biopsy (39%) compared to LEEP and ablation (13%) and conization (16%) and were managed by repeat LEEP. Pregnancy and full-term delivery rates following LEEP biopsy were significantly higher. Conclusion: “See-and-treat” LEEP biopsy was safely performed in the outpatient department. Pregnancy rates and full-term deliveries following LEEP biopsy appear favorable.

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Colposcopy; Electrosurgery; Papanicolaou test; Recurrence; Uterine cervical neoplasms.

[1] Kamangar F., Dores G.M., Anderson W.F.: “Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world”. J. Clin. Oncol., 2006, 24, 2137.

[2] Prendiville W., Cullimore J., Norman S.: “Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ). A new method of management for women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 1989, 96, 1054.

[3] Wright T.C. Jr., Cox. J.T., Massad. L.S., Twiggs. L.B., Wilkinson. E.J.: “2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities”. JAMA, 2002, 287, 2120.

[4] Nogara P.R., Manfroni L.A., da Silva M.C., Consolaro M.E.: “The “see and treat” strategy for identifying cytologic high-grade precancerous cervical lesions among low-income Brazilian women”. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet., 2012, 118, 103.

[5] Matsubara S., Usui R., Ohkuchi A.: “Controversy on another possible risk of preterm delivery after cervical conization: time interval between conization and conception”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2014, 35, 6.

[6] Bevis K.S., Biggio J.R.: “Cervical conization and the risk of preterm delivery”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2011, 205, 19.

[7] Nam K.H., Kwon J.Y., Kim Y.H., Park Y.W.: “Pregnancy outcome after cervical conization: risk factors for preterm delivery and the efficacy of prophylactic cerclage”. J. Gynecol. Oncol., 2010, 21, 225.

[8] Kristensen J., Langhoff-Roos J., Wittrup M., Bock J.E.: “Cervical conization and preterm delivery/low birth weight. A systematic review of the literature”. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand., 1993, 72, 640.

[9] Acharya G., Kjeldberg I., Hansen S.M., Sorheim N., Jacobsen B.K., Maltau J.M.: “Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., 2005, 272, 109.

[10] El-Nashar S.A., Shazly S.A., Hopkins M.R., Bakkum-Gomez J.N., Famuyide A.O.: “Loop electrosurgical excision procedure instead of cold-knife conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with unsatisfactory colposcopic examinations: a systematic review and meta analysis”. J. Low. Genit. Tract. Dis., 2017, 21, 129.

[11] Kochen M., Helmerhorst T.J., Berkhof J., Louwers J.A., Nobbenhuis M.A., Bais A.G., et al.: “Risk of recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after successful treatment: a long-term multi-cohort study.” Lancet Oncol., 2011, 12, 441.

[12] Wilkinson E.J.: “Women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: requirement for active long-term surveillance after therapy”. J. Natl. Cancer. Inst., 2009, 101, 696.

[13] Duesing N., Schwarz J., Choschzick M., Jaenicke F., Gieseking F., Issa R., et al.: “Assessment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) with colposcopic biopsy and efficacy of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP)”. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., 2012, 286, 1549.

[14] Cecchini S., Visioli C.B., Zappa M., Ciatto S.: “Recurrence after treatment by loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) of highgrade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Tumori., 2002, 88, 478.

[15] Carter J., Sim J., Land R., Dalrymple C., Abdel-Hadi M., Pather S.: “Recurrence after treatment for high-grade dysplasia: Should we modify our post-treatment surveillance protocols?” Aust. N.Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 2006, 46, 360.

[16] Verguts J., Bronselaer B., Donders G., Arbyn M., Van Eldere J., Drijkoningen M., Poppe W.: “Prediction of recurrence after treatment for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the role of human papillomavirus testing and age at conisation”. BJOG, 2006, 113, 1303.

[17] Kyrgiou M., Tsoumpou I., Vrekoussis T., Martin-Hirsch P., Arbyn M., Prendiville W., et al.: “The up-to-date evidence on colposcopy practice and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the Cochrane colposcopy & cervical cytopathology collaborative group (C5 group) approach”. Cancer. Treat. Rev., 2006, 32, 516.

[18] 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.