Interpretability of excisional biopsies of the cervix: Cone biopsy and loop excision

Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 10-12

  Miroshnichenko, Gennady G ^a   Parva, Mehdi ^a   Holtz, David O ^a   Klemens, Jeffrey A ^b   Dunton, Charles J ^a  

^a LANKENAU HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cold knife conization; Loop electrosurgical excision procedure

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER INVASION; COLD KNIFE CONIZATION; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOOP ELECTROSURGICAL EXCISION PROCEDURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CONIZATION;

ADULT; BIOPSY; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; CONIZATION; ELECTROSURGERY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 58549106433     PISSN: 10892591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31817ff940     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Giacalone PL, Laffargue F, Aligier N, Roger P, Combecal J, Daures JP. Randomized study comparing two techniques of conization: cold knife versus loop excision. Gynecol Oncol 1999;75:356-60.
2. Girardi F, Heydarfadi M, Koroscherz F, Pickel H, Winter R. Cold-knife conization versus loop excision: histopathologic and clinical results of a randomized trial. Gynecol Oncol 1994;55(3 Pt 1):368-70.
3. Mahvert P, Dargent D, Roy M, Beau G. A randomized prospective study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Gynecol Oncol 1994;54:175-9.
4. Wright TC, Massad SM, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D. 2006 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:346-55.
5. Kietpeerakool C, Khunamornpong S, Srisomboon J, Siriaunkgul S, Suprasert P. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II-III with endocervical cone margin involvement after cervical loop conization: is there any predictor for residual disease? J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2007;33:660-4.
6. Muntz HG, Bell DA, Lage JM, Goff BA, Feldman S, Rice LW. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:935-9.
7. Bryson P, Stulberg R, Shepherd L, McLelland K, Jeffrey J. Is electrosurgical loop excision with negative margins sufficient treatment for cervical ACIS? Gynecol Oncol 2004; 93:465-8.
8. Widrich T, Kennedy AW, Myers TM, Hart WR, Wirth S. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: management and outcome. Gynecol Oncol 1996;61:304-8.
9. Krivak TC, Rose GS, McBroom JW, Carlson JW, Winter WE, Kost ER. Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: a systematic review of therapeutic options and predictors of persistent or recurrent disease. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001; 56:567-75.
10. Bull-Phelps SL, Garner EI, Walsh CS, Gehrig P, Miller DS, Schorge JO. Fertility sparing surgery in 101 patients with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 107:316-9.
11. Roman LD, Felix JC, Muderspach LI, Agahjanian A, Qian D, Morrow CP, et al. Risk of residual invasive disease in women with microinvasive squamous cancer in a conization specimen. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:759-64.