Significance of margin and extent of dysplasia in loop electrosurgery excision procedure biopsies performed for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in predicting persistent disease

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 131, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 622-624

  Tyler, Lisa N ^a   Andrews, Nancy ^a   Parrish, Rudolph S ^a   Hazlett, Linda J ^b   Korourian, Soheila ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; COLPOSCOPY; DYSPLASIA; ELECTROSURGERY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LOOP ELECTROSURGERY EXCISION PROCEDURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; ELECTROSURGERY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PROGNOSIS; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 34147158285     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Mor-Yosef S, Lopes A, Pearson S, et al. Instruments and methods: loop diathermy cone biopsy. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75:884-886.
2. Fanning J, Padratzik J. Cold knife conization vs. LEEP: are they the same procedure? J Reprod Med. 2002;47:33-35.
3. Huang LW, Hwang JL. A comparison between loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold knife conization for treatment of cervical dysplasia: residual disease in a subsequent hysterectomy specimen. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;73:12-15.
4. Trejo Solorzano O, Lopez Velazquez JL, Hurtado Reyna H, et al. Electrosurgery as treatment of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 1997;65:332-338.
5. 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 Gynecol. 1989;96:1054-1060.
6. Fan Q, Tay SK, Shen K. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a valuable method for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Chin J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;36:271-274.
7. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT Massad LS, et al. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA. 2002;287:2120-2129.
8. Mathevet P, Dargent D, Roy M, et al. A randomized prospective study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;54:175-179.
9. Felix J, Muderspach L, Duggan B, et al. The significance of positive margins in loop electrosurgical cone biopsies. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84:996-1000.
10. Livasy CA, Maygarden SJ, Rajaratnam CT, Novotny DB. 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;12:233-238.
11. Ioffe OB, Brooks SE, De Rezende RB, et al. Artifact in cervical LLETZ specimens: correlation with follow up. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1999;18:115-121.
12. 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;33:198-200.