Evaluation of colposcopy and LEEP results performed in gynecology and gynecological oncology surgery services
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prof. Dr. Cemil Tascıoglu City Hospital, 34384 Istanbul, Turkey
2Department of Gynecological Oncology Surgery, Prof. Dr. Cemil Tascıoglu City Hospital, 34384 Istanbul, Turkey
Submitted: 01 June 2023 Accepted: 13 July 2023
Online publish date: 15 September 2023
The diagnostic performances of colposcopy and Loop Electrosurgical Excision Proce-dure (LEEP) results in gynecology and gynecological oncology surgical services were evaluated. Their differences regarding biopsy numbers were investigated. The other objective was to examine factors associated with recurrence and residual lesions after LEEP. This study included the cytology results of 1217 women undergone colposcopy at our hospital colposcopy unit between 2012 and 2017. The colposcopicsensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated based on LEEP results. The qualitative data were compared by employing Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. χ2 predicted the relation between age and number of involved margins with recurrent disease. Moreover, it predicted the link between age, cytology and number of relevant margins with residual disease. There was no significant difference regarding the diagnostic performance of two groups when LEEP was determined as the gold standard against colposcopy. The diagnostic accuracy rate was 1.83 times higher when more than 2 biopsies were taken compared to 2 or fewer. A significant increase was observed in the residual rate among women having pre-LEEP high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) positive tests compared to those with HR-HPV negative tests (48.0% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.04). Women with ≥ High grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)-positive margins in the first conization exhibited higher residual rates compared to those with High grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL)-positive margins (50.7% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001). Patients ofpositive surgical margins, residual lesions and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) with HPV 16 had higher probability of persistent HPV infection after conization. There was no significant difference pertaining to the diagnostic performance of two groups. HPV 16+ and the positive surgical margin were the predictive of recurrence.
LEEP; Cervical dysplasia; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Conization
Fatih Şahin,Emine Aydın,Emine Ufuk Büyükkaya Öcal,Savaş Özdemir,Ali Murat Kasapoğlu,Özgür Akbayır. Evaluation of colposcopy and LEEP results performed in gynecology and gynecological oncology surgery services. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2023.doi:10.22514/ejgo.2023.071.
 International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cervix uteri fact sheet: cancer today. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021; 71: 209–249.
 Fontham ETH, Wolf AMD, Church TR, Etzioni R, Flowers CR, Herzig A, et al. Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2020; 70: 321–346.
 Abdulaziz AMA, You X, Liu L, Sun Y, Zhang J, Sun S, et al. Management of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion patients with positive margin after LEEP conization: a retrospective study. Medicine. 2021; 100: e26030.
 Crosbie EJ, Einstein MH, Franceschi S, Kitchener HC. Human papillo-mavirus and cervical cancer. The Lancet. 2013; 382: 889–899.
 Loopik DL, van Drongelen J, Bekkers RLM, Voorham QJM, Melchers WJG, Massuger LFAG, et al. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and the risk of spontaneous preterm birth: a Dutch population-based cohort study with 45,259 pregnancy outcomes. PLOS Medicine. 2021; 18: e1003665.
 Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, Katki HA, Kinney WK, Schiffman M, et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2013; 17: S1–S27.
 Khan MJ, Werner CL, Darragh TM, Guido RS, Mathews C, Moscicki AB, et al. ASCCP colposcopy standards: role of colposcopy, benefits, potential harms, and terminology for colposcopic practice. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2017; 21: 223–229.
 Ouh YT, Park JJ, Kang M, Kim M, Song JY, Shin SJ, et al. Discrepancy between cytology and histology in cervical cancer screening: a multicenter retrospective study (KGOG 1040). Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2021; 36: e164.
 Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, Chelmow D, Einstein MH, Garcia F, et al. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2020; 24: 102–131.
 Origoni M, Cantatore F, Sopracordevole F, Clemente N, Spinillo A, Gardella B, et al. Colposcopy accuracy and diagnostic performance: a quality control and quality assurance survey in Italian tertiary-level teaching and academic institutions-the Italian society of colposcopy and cervico-vaginal pathology (SICPCV). Diagnostics. 2023; 13: 1906.
 Hopman EH, Voorhorst FJ, Kenemans P, Meyer CJ, Helmerhorst TJ. Observer agreement on interpreting colposcopic images of CIN. Gynecologic Oncology. 1995; 58: 206–209.
 Ferris DG, Litaker M. Interobserver Agreement for colposcopy quality control using digitized colposcopic images during the ALTS trial. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2005; 9: 29–35.
 Underwood M, Arbyn M, Parry-Smith W, De Bellis-Ayres S, Todd R, Redman CW, et al. Accuracy of colposcopy-directed punch biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2012; 119: 1293–1301.
 Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K, Dippery S, Gardner S, Kubota J, et al. Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2006; 108: 264–272.
 Jeronimo J, Schiffman M. Colposcopy at a crossroads. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006; 195: 349–353.
 Fernández‐Montolí ME, Tous S, Medina G, Castellarnau M, Gar-cía‐Tejedor A, Sanjosé S. Long‐term predictors of residual or recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2–3 after treatment with a large loop excision of the transformation zone: a retrospective study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2020; 127: 377–387.
 Ding T, Li L, Duan R, Chen Y, Yang B, Xi M. Risk factors analysis of recurrent disease after treatment with a loop electrosurgical excision procedure for high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2023; 160: 538–547.
 Giannini A, Di Donato V, Sopracordevole F, Ciavattini A, Ghelardi A, Vizza E, et al. Outcomes of high-grade cervical dysplasia with positive margins and HPV persistence after cervical conization. Vaccines. 2023; 11: 698.
 Papalia N, Rohla A, Tang S, Nation J, Nelson G. Defining the short-term disease recurrence after loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP). BMC Women’s Health. 2020; 20: 34.
 Arbyn M, Redman CWE, Verdoodt F, Kyrgiou M, Tzafetas M, Ghaem-Maghami S, et al. Incomplete excision of cervical precancer as a predictor of treatment failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Oncology. 2017; 18: 1665–1679.
 Tasci T, Turan T, Ureyen I, Karalok A, Kalyoncu R, Boran N, et al. Is there any predictor for residual disease after cervical conization with positive surgical margins for HSIL or microinvasive cervical cancer? Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2015; 19: 115–118.
 Livasy CA, Moore DT, Van Le L. The clinical significance of a negative loop electrosurgical cone biopsy for high-grade dysplasia. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2004; 104: 250–254.
 Zhang Y, Ni Z, Wei T, Liu Q. Persistent HPV infection after conization of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia—a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Women’s Health. 2023; 23: 216.
 Lichter K, Krause D, Xu J, Tsai SHL, Hage C, Weston E, et al. Adjuvant human papillomavirus vaccine to reduce recurrent cervical dysplasia in unvaccinated women. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2020; 135: 1070–1083.
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.
Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.