Human papillomavirus test after conization in predicting residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy specimens

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 114, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 87-92

  Park, Jeong Yeol ^a   Kim, Dae Yeon ^a   Kim, Jong Hyeok ^a   Kim, Yong Man ^a   Kim, Young Tak ^a   Nam, Joo Hyun ^a  

^a University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

VIRUS DNA;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DISEASE SEVERITY; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CONIZATION; VIRUS DETECTION; WART VIRUS;

ADULT; AGED; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CONIZATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM, RESIDUAL; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 67651068514     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ab6dca     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Buxton EJ, Luesley DM, Wade-Evans T,JordanJA. Residual disease after cone biopsy: completeness of excision and follow-up cytology as predictive factors. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70:529-32.
2. Lu CH, Liu FS, TsengJJ, Ho ES. Predictive factors for residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy following conization for CIN III. Gynecol Oncol 2000;79:284-8.
3. Mohamed-Noor K, Quinn MA, TanJ. Outcomes after cervical cold knife conization with complete and incomplete excision of abnormal epithelium: a review of 699 cases. Gynecol Oncol 1997;67:34-8.
4. Moore BC, Higgins RV, Laurent SL, Marroum MC, Bellitt P. Predictive factors from cold knife conization for residual cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in subsequent hysterectomy. AmJ Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:361-6.
5. Kalogirou D, Antoniou G, Karakitsos P, Botsis D, Kalogirou O, Giannikos L. Predictive factors used to justify hysterectomy after loop conization: increasing age and severity of disease. EurJ Gynaecol Oncol 1997;18:113-6.
6. 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.
7. Lapaquette TK, Dinh TV, Hannigan EV, Doherty MG, Yan-dell RB, Buchanan VS. Management of patients with positive margins after cervical conization. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82: 440-3.
8. Livasy CA, Maygarden SJ, Rajaratnam CT, Novotny DB. Predictors of recurrent dysplasia after a cervical loop electro-cautery excision procedure for CIN-3: a study of margin, endocervical gland, and quadrant involvement. Mod Pathol 1999;12:233-8.
9. Phelps JY 3rd, Ward JA, Szigeti J 2nd, Bowland CH, Mayer AR. Cervical cone margins as a predictor for residual dysplasia in post-cone hysterectomy specimens. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84:128-30.
10. Park JY, Lee SM, Yoo CW, Kang S, Park SY, Seo SS. Risk factors predicting residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy following conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) III and microinvasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007;107:39-44.
11. Park JY, Lee KH, Dong SM, Kang S, Park SY, Seo SS. Theassociation of pre-conization high-risk HPV load and the persistence of HPV infection and persistence/recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after conization. Gynecol Oncol 2008;108:549-54.
12. Jain S, Tseng CJ, Horng SG, Soong YK, Pao CC. Negative predictive value of human papillomavirus test following conization of the cervix uteri. Gynecol Oncol 2001;82:177-80.
13. Lin CT, Tseng CJ, Lai CH, Hsueh S, Huang KG, Huang HJ, et al. Value of human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid testing after conization in the prediction of residual disease in the subsequent hysterectomy specimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:940-5.
14. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. JPathol 1999;189: 12-9.
15. Schiffman MH, Bauer HM, Hoover RN, Glass AG, Cadell DM, Rush BB, et al. Epidemiologic evidence showing that human papillomavirus infection causes most cervical intraepi-thelial neoplasia.J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:958-64.
16. Clavel C, Cucherousset J, Lorenzato M, Caudroy S, Nou JM, Nazeyrollas P, et al. Negative human papillomavirus testing in normal smears selects a population at low risk for developing high-grade cervical lesions. Br JCancer 2004;90:1803-8.
17. Nobbenhuis MA, Walboomers JM, Helmerhorst TJ, Rozendaal L, Remmink AJ, Risse EK, et al. Relation of human papilloma-virus status to cervical lesions and consequences for cervical-cancer screening: a prospective study. Lancet 1999;354:20-5.
18. Felix JC, Muderspach LI, Duggan BD, Roman LD. The significance of positive margins in loop electrosurgical cone biopsies. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:996-1000.
19. Elfgren K, Bistoletti P, Dillner L, Walboomers JM, Meijer CJ, Dillner J. Conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is followed by disappearance of human papillomavirus deoxyri-bonucleic acid and a decline in serum and cervical mucus antibodies against human papillomavirus antigens. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:937-42.
20. Tate JE, Resnick M, Sheets EE, Crum CP. Absence of papil-lomavirus DNA in normal tissue adjacent to most cervical intraepithelial neoplasms. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:257-60.
21. Kanamori Y, Kigawa J, Minagawa Y, Irie T, Oishi T, Itamochi H, et al. Residual disease and presence of human papilloma-virus after conization. Oncology 1998;55:517-20.
22. Nuovo G, Moritz J, Kowalik A, Chalas E, Kaplan B, Mann W. Human papillomavirus types and cervical squamous intraepi-thelial lesions that recur after cold-knife conization. Gynecol Oncol 1992;46:304-8.
23. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Carlson J, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ, et al 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:295-304.
24. Nobbenhuis MA, Meijer CJ, van den Brule AJ, Rozendaal L, Voorhorst FJ, Risse EK, et al. Addition of high-risk HPV testing improves the current guidelines on follow-up after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Cancer 2001;84:796-801.