Article Data

  • Views 695
  • Dowloads 133

Original Research

Open Access

Impact of endocervical surgical margin in the treatment of dysplastic cervical lesions

  • Serena Loda1
  • Federica Salinaro1
  • Claudio Schreiber1
  • Giuseppe Ciravolo1
  • GiancarloTisi1
  • Federico Ferrari1
  • Tiziano Maggino2,*,
  • Franco Odicino1
  • Enrico Sartori1

1Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Spedali Civili of Brescia, University of Brescia, Brescia

2Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, “Dell’Angelo” General Hospital, Mestre, Venice, Italy

DOI: 10.31083/j.ejgo.2020.06.2122 Vol.41,Issue 6,December 2020 pp.931-938

Submitted: 07 May 2020 Accepted: 20 August 2020

Published: 15 December 2020

*Corresponding Author(s): Tiziano Maggino E-mail: tiziano.maggino@aulss3.veneto.it

Abstract

Aim of the study: To describe the impact of endocervical margin involvement after cervical CO2 laser conization and to report the risks factors for positive margin and patterns of subsequent management. Methods: Clinical and pathological data of 2863 patients who underwent treatment were retrospectively reviewed. Data were obtained from consecutive patients treated from January 1990 to June 2019 at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics of Spedali Civili of Brescia. We used Chisquare test with significance defined at p < 0.05 to explore the results. Further, we described the “cylindrical” technique for cervical CO2 laser conization. Results: Endocervical margin involvement was found in 152 patients (5.3%), while 1795 patients with negative endocervical margin were available for follow-up (62.7%), the remaining were lost to follow-up. The risk factors for endocervical margin involvement were the grade of the lesion (p < 0.001), age (p < 0.001), extension to the cervical canal (p < 0.001); presence of moderate intraoperative bleeding (p = 0.04) and lack of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (p = 0.05). Among patients with positive endocervical margin, 21 patients (13.8%) with invasive lesion underwent definitive treatment (Group 1), 30 patients (Group 2) underwent hysterectomy or reconization, while intensive follow-up was offered to 101 patients (Group 3). Only 91 patients were available for follow-up in Group 3. The treatment failure/recurrence in the latter group (n = 91) of patients was higher when compared to patients (n = 1795) with negative endocervical margin (14.3% versus 6.7%; p = 0.01). Conclusion: Endocervical margin involvement after CO2 laser conization is a predictor of treatment failure/recurrence of disease. Risk factors for endocervical margin involvement should be subject of prospective multicenter studies.


Keywords

Cervical dysplasias; Endocervical margin involvement; CO2 laser conization.


Cite and Share

Serena Loda,Federica Salinaro,Claudio Schreiber,Giuseppe Ciravolo,GiancarloTisi,Federico Ferrari,Tiziano Maggino,Franco Odicino,Enrico Sartori. Impact of endocervical surgical margin in the treatment of dysplastic cervical lesions. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2020. 41(6);931-938.

References

[1] Sasieni P., Castanon A., Cuzick J.: “Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case-control study of prospectively recorded data”. BMJ, 2009, 339, b2968-b2968.

[2] Ronco G., Dillner J., Elfström K.M., Tunesi S., Snijders P.J.F., Ar-byn M., et al.: “Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials”. Lancet, 2014, 383, 524-532.

[3] Tainio K., Athanasiou A., Tikkinen K.A.O., Aaltonen R., Cárdenas J., Hernándes, et al.: “Clinical course of untreated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 under active surveillance: systematic review and meta-analysis”. BMJ, 2018, 360, k499.

[4] Martin-Hirsch P.P., Paraskevaidis E., Kitchener H.C.: “Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 1999.

[5] Landoni F., Sartori E., Maggino T., Zola P., Zanagnolo V., Cosio S., et al.: “Is there a role for postoperative treatment in patients with stage Ib2–IIb cervical cancer treated with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery? An Italian multicenter retrospective study”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2014, 132, 611-617.

[6] Ferrari F., Fachechi G., Gubbala K., Soleymani majd H., Garruto Campanile R., Tozzi R.: “Upfront laparoscopic surgery in Ib2 cervical cancer: Surgical and survival outcomes”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2015, 137, 73.

[7] Della Corte L., Barra F., Foreste V., Giampaolino P., Evangelisti G., Ferrero S., et al.: “Advances in paclitaxel combinations for treating cervical cancer”. Expert Opin. Pharmacother., 2020, 21, 663-677.

[8] Barra F., Lorusso D., Leone Roberti Maggiore U., Ditto A., Bogani G., Raspagliesi F., et al.: “Investigational drugs for the treatment of cervical cancer”. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs, 2017, 26, 389-402.

[9] Bostofte E., Berget A., Larsen J.F., Pedersen P.H., Rank F.: “Conization by carbon dioxide laser or cold knife in the treatment of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia”. Acta. Obstet. Gynecol. Scand., 1986, 65, 199-202.

[10] 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, 1054-60.

[11] Salinaro F., Loda S., Schreiber C., Ciravolo G., Tisi G., Ferrari F., et al.: “LaserCo2 role in the treatment of vaginal intrepithelial neoplasia (VAIN) retrospective study involving 587 patients”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2019, 40, 538-542.

[12] Valenti G., Vitale S.G., Tropea A., Biondi A., Laganà A.S.: “Tumor markers of uterine cervical cancer: a new scenario to guide surgical practice?” Updates Surg., 2017, 69, 441-449.

[13] Ferrari F., Forte S., Ardighieri L., Bonetti E., Fernando B., Sartori E., et al.: “Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in primary squamous cell vulvar cancer: The role of perineural invasion in recurrence and survival”. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol., 2019, 45, 2115-2119.

[14] Luo C., Qiu J., Zhang J., Yuan L., Liu C., Wang C., et al.: “Analysis of the risk factors of residual lesions after conization and prognosis of multifocal micro‑invasive squamous cell cervical carcinoma treated with different types of surgery”. Mol. Clin. Oncol., 2019,11, 364- 370.

[15] Nuovo J., Melnikow J., Willan A.R., Chan B.K.S.: “Treatment outcomes for squamous intraepithelial lesions”. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol., 2000, 68, 25-33.

[16] Lin H., Chang H.Y., Huang C.C., Changchien C.C.: “Prediction of disease persistence after conization for microinvasive cervical carcinoma and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3”. J. Gynecol. Oncol., 2004, 14, 311-316.

[17] Barra F., Leone Roberti Maggiore U., Bogani G., Ditto A., Signorelli M., Martinelli F., et al.: “New prophylactics human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines against cervical cancer”. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 2019, 39, 1-10.

[18] Della Corte L., Giampaolino P., Mercorio A., Riemma G., Schi-attarella A., De Franciscis P., et al.: “Sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer: state of the art”. Transl. Cancer Res., 2020.

[19] Barra F., Della Corte L., Noberasco G., Foreste V., Riemma G., Di Filippo C., et al.: “Advances in therapeutic vaccines for treating human papillomavirus‐related cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res., 2020, 46, 989-1006.

[20] Alonso I., Torné A., Puig-Tintoré 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, 631-636.

[21] Murta E.F.C., Resende A.V., Souza M.A.H., Adad S.J., Salum R.: “Importance of surgical margins in conization for cervical intraep-ithelial neoplasia grade III”. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., 1999, 263, 42-44.

[22] Orbo A., Arnesen T., Arnes M., Straume B.: “Resection margins in conization as prognostic marker for relapse in high-grade dysplasia of the uterine cervix in northern Norway: a retrospective long-term follow-up material”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2004, 93, 479-483.

[23] Reich O., Lahousen M., Pickel H., Tamussino K., Winter R.: “Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2002, 99, 193-196.

[24] Chang D., Cheng W., Torng P., Chen R., Huang S.: “Prediction of residual neoplasia based on histopathology and margin status of conization specimens”. Gynecol. Oncol., 1996, 63, 53-56.

[25] Johnson N., Khalili M., Hirschowitz L., Ralli F., Porter R.: “Pre-dicting residual disease after excision of cervical dysplasia”. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet., 2003, 110, 952-955.

[26] Sopracordevole F., Chiossi G., Barbero M., Cristoforoni P., Ghir-inghello B., Frega A., et al.: “Surgical approach and long-term clinical outcome in women with microinvasive cervical cancer”. Anticancer Res., 2014, 34, 4345-4349.

[27] Kong T., Son J.H., Chang S., Paek J., Lee Y., Ryu H.: “Value of endocervical margin and high-risk human papillomavirus status after conization for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, ade-nocarcinoma in situ, and microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2014, 135, 468-473.

[28] Casarin J., Bogani G., Serati M., Pinelli C., Laganà A.S., Garzon S., et al.: “Presence of glandular cells at the preoperative cervical cytology and local recurrence in endometrial cancer”. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol., 2020, 39, 522-528.

[29] Casarin J., Bogani G., Papadia A., Ditto A., Pinelli C., Garzon S., et al.: “Preoperative conization and risk of recurrence in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: a multicenter study”. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol., 2020, S1553-4650, 30190-30194.

[30] Casarin J., Buda A., Bogani G., Fanfani F., Papadia A., Ceccaroni M., et al.: “Predictors of recurrence following laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A multi-institutional study”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2020, 159, 164-170.

[31] Soleymani majd H., Ferrari F., Gubbala K., Campanile R.G., Tozzi R.: “Latest developments and techniques in gynaecological oncology surgery”. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol., 2015, 27, 291-296.

[32] Rossetti D., Vitale S.G., Tropea A., Biondi A., Laganà A.S.: “New procedures for the identification of sentinel lymph node: Shaping the horizon of future management in early stage uterine cervical cancer”. Updates Surg., 2017,69, 383-388.

[33] 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., 2014, 33, 83-88.

[34] Arbyn M., Redman C.W.E., 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”. Lancet. Oncol., 2017, 18, 1665-1679.

[35] Itsukaichi M., Kurata H., Matsushita M., Watanabe M., Sekine M., Aoki Y., et al.: “Stage Ia1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma: conservative management after laser conization with positive margins”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2003, 90, 387-389.

[36] 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, 985-993.

[37] Ghaem-Maghami S., De-Silva D., Tipples M., Lam S.J., Perryman K., Soutter W.P.: “Determinants of success in treating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia”. BJOG, 2010, 118, 679-684.

[38] Alder S., Megyessi D., Sundström K., Östensson E., Mints M., Belkić K., et al.: “Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia as a predictor of the risk of recurrent diseasea 16-year follow-up study”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2020, 222, 172.e1-172. e12.

[39] de Oliveira C.A., Russomano F.B., dos Santos Gomes Júnior S.C., de Miranda Corrêa F.: “Risk of persistent high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion after electrosurgical excisional treatment with positive margins: a meta-analysis”. Sao. Paulo. Med. J., 2012, 130, 119- 125.

[40] Shipman S.D., Bristow R.E.: “Adenocarcinoma in situ and early invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix”. Curr. Opin. Oncol., 2001, 13, 394-398.

[41] Costa S., Negri G., Sideri M., Santini D., Martinelli G., Venturoli S., et al.: “Human papillomavirus (HPV) test and PAP smear as predictors of outcome in conservatively treated adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the uterine cervix”. Gynecol. Oncol., 2007, 106, 170-176.

[42] Laganà A.S., Garzon S., Raffaelli R., Ban Frangež H., Lukanovič D., Franchi M.: “Vaginal stenosis after cervical cancer treatments: challenges for reconstructive surgery”. J. Investig. Surg., 2019, 1-2.

[43] 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, 205-211.

[44] Katki H.A., Schiffman M., Castle P.E., Fetterman B., Poitras N.E., Lorey T., et al.: “Five-year risk of recurrence after treatment of CIN 2, CIN 3, or AIS: Performance of HPV and pap cotesting in post-treatment management”. J. Low Genit. Tract. Dis., 2013, 17, S78-S84.

[45] Kyrgiou M., Koliopoulos G., Martin-Hirsch P., Arbyn M., Pren-diville W., Paraskevaidis E.: “Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis”. Lancet, 2006, 367, 489-498.

[46] Simoens C., Goffin F., Simon P., Barlow P., Antoine J., Foidart J. M., et al.: “Adverse obstetrical outcomes after treatment of pre-cancerous cervical lesions: a belgian multicentre study”. BJOG, 2012, 119, 1247-1255.


Abstracted / indexed in

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.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top