An investigation of the mechanisms underlying the disparity between rate of residual endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) in hysterectomy specimens and clinical failure rate following conservatively treated AIS

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 122, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 540-545

  Goldstein, Neal S ^a  

^a WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma in situ; Cone biopsy; Endocervix; Margins; Recurrence

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER RECURRENCE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; HYSTERECTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE ENDOCERVIX;

EID: 4644282704     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/XA1C438LL890GKTN     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Shipman SD, Bristow RE. Adenocarcinoma in situ and early invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Curr Opin Oncol. 2001;13:394-398.
2. Hopkins MP. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix; the margins must be clear [editorial]. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;79:4-5.
3. Andersen ES, Nielsen K. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: a prospective study of conization as definitive treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;86:365-369.
4. Kennedy AW, Biscotti CV. Further study of the management of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;86:361-364.
5. Krivak TC, Rose GS, McBroom JW, et al. Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: a systematic review of therapeutic options and predictors of persistent or recurrent disease. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2001;56:567-575.
6. Soutter WP, Haidopoulos D, Gornall RJ, et al. Is conservative treatment for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix safe? BJOG. 2001;108:1184-1189.
7. Ostor AG, Duncan A, Quinn M, et al. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: an experience with 100 cases. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;79:207-210.
8. Shin CH, Schorge JO, Lee KR, et al. Conservative management of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;79:6-10.
9. Duggan BD, Felix JC, Muderspach LI, et al. Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a randomized, prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:276-282.
10. Azodi M, Chambers SK, Rutherford TJ, et al. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: management and outcome. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;73:348-353.
11. Goldstein NS, Mani A. The status and distance of cone biopsy margins as a predictor of excision adequacy for endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998;109:727-732.
12. Bertrand M, Lickrish GM, Colgan TJ. The anatomic distribution of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: implications for treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;157:21-25.
13. Denehy TR, Gregori CA, Breen JL. Endocervical curettage, cone margins, and residual adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:1-6.
14. Im DD, Duska LR, Rosenshein NB. Adequacy of conization margins in adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix as a predictor of residual disease. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;59:179-182.
15. McHale MT, Le TD, Burger RA, et al. Fertility sparing treatment for in situ and early invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:726-731.
16. Muntz HG, Bell DA, Lage JM, et al. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80:935-939.
17. Widrich T, Kennedy AW, Myers TM, et al. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: management and outcome. Gynecol Oncol. 1996;61:304-308.
18. Wolf JK, Levenback C, Malpica A, et al. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: significance of cone biopsy margins. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88:82-86.
19. Andersen ES, Arffmann E. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: a clinico-pathologic study of 36 cases. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;35:1-7.
20. Hopkins MP, Roberts JA, Schmidt RW. Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71:842-844.
21. Cullimore JE, Luesley DM, Rollason TP, et al. A prospective study of conization of the cervix in the management of cervical intraepithelial glandular neoplasia (CIGN): a preliminary report. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;99:314-318.
22. Goldstein NS, Kestin L, Vicini F. Factors associated with ipsilateral breast failure and distant metastases in patients with invasive breast carcinoma treated with breast-conserving therapy: a clinicopathologic study of 607 neoplasms from 583 patients. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:500-527.
23. Kennedy AW, elTabbakh GH, Biscotti CV, et al. Invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix following LLETZ (large loop excision of the transformation zone) for adenocarcinoma in situ. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;58:274-277.
24. Poynor EA, Barakat RR, Hoskins WJ. Management and follow-up of patients with adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;57:158-164.
25. Hocking GR, Hayman JA, Ostor AG. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix progressing to invasive adenocarcinoma. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;36:218-220.
26. Muntz HG. Can cervical adenocarcinoma in situ be safely managed by conization alone? Gynecol Oncol. 1996;61:301-303.
27. Lea JS, Shin CH, Sheets EE, et al. Endocervical curettage at conization to predict residual cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;87:129-132.