Endocervical glandular involvement, positive endocervical surgical margin and multicentricity are more often associated with high-grade than low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research

Volumn 38, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 1206-1210

  Kir, Gozde ^a   Karabulut, Murat Hakan ^a   Topal, Cumhur Seļuk ^a   Yilmaz, Müberra Segmen ^a  

^a Umraniye Education and Research Hospital   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervix; Endocervical glands; High grade squamous intraepithelial lesion

Indexed keywords

CANCER GRADING; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER TISSUE; CAUTERIZATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; HIGH GRADE SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LOW GRADE SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTIPLE CANCER; REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CONIZATION;

CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; FEMALE; HUMANS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84869190883     PISSN: 13418076     EISSN: 14470756     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2012.01847.x     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Linares AC, Storment J, Rhodes-Murris H, Malpica A, Mitcheli MF. A comparison three cone biopsy techniques for evaluation and treatment of squamous intraepithelial lesions. J Gynecol Tech 1997; 3: 151-156.
2. Machever 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: 175-179. (Pubitemid 24256466)
3. Murdoch JB, Morgan PR, Lopes A, Monaghan JM. Histological incomplete excision of CIN after large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) merits careful follow-up, not retreatment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 990-993.
4. Oyensanya Q, Amerasighe C, Manning EA. A comparison between loop diathermy conization and cold-knife conization for management of cervical dysplasia associated with unsatisfactory colposcopy. Gynecol Oncol 1993; 50: 84-86.
5. Krebs HB, Pastore L, Helmkamp BF. Loop electrosurgical excision procedures for cervical dysplasia: Experience in a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 289-295. (Pubitemid 23262884)
6. Gold M, Dunton CJ, Murray J, Macones G, Hanau C, Carlson JA. Loop electrocautery excision procedure: Therapeutic effectiveness as an ablation and conization equivalent. Gynecol Oncol 1996; 61: 241-244. (Pubitemid 26149887)
7. Luesley DM, Cullimore J, Redman CW et al. Loop diathermy excision of the cervical transformation zone in patients with abnormal cervical smears. BMJ 1990; 300: 1690-1693. (Pubitemid 20202359)
8. Wright TC, Gagnon S, Richart RM, Ferenczy A. Treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia using the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 173-178.
9. Livacy 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. (Pubitemid 29133843)
10. Lu CH, Liu CJ, Kuo CJ, Chang CC, Ho ES. Prediction of persistence or recurrence after conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 830-835.
11. 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. (Pubitemid 47495943)
12. Nagi CS, Schlosshaier PW. Endocervical glandular involvement is associated with high-grade SIL. Gynecol Oncol 2006; 102: 240-243. (Pubitemid 44041637)
13. Galgano MT, Castle PE, Atkins KA, Brix WK, Nassau SR, Stoler MH. Using biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 2010; 34: 1077-1087.
14. Dijkstra MG, Heideman DA, de Roy SC et al. p16(INK4a) immunostaining as an alternative to histology review for reliable grading of cervical intraepithelial lesions. J Clin Pathol 2010; 63: 972-977.
15. Guo M, Baruch AC, Silva EG et al. Efficacy of p16 and ProExC immunostaining in the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 2011; 135: 212-220.
16. Phelps JY, Ward JA, Szigeti J 2nd, Bowland CH, Mayer AR. Cervical cone margins as a predictor for residual dysplasia in post-cone hysterectomy specimens. Obsbtet Gynecol 1994; 84: 128-130. (Pubitemid 24202971)
17. Bertelsen B, Tande T, Sandvei R, Hartveit F. Laser conization of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3: Free resection margins of lesion-free survival. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 54-59. (Pubitemid 29043913)
18. Maluf PJ, Adad SJ, Murta RF. Outcome after conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III: Relation with surgical margins, extension to the crypts and mitoses. Tumori 2004; 90: 473-477. (Pubitemid 39556796)
19. Kielpeerakol C, Khunamorapong S, Srisomboon J, Sriaurikoul 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: 660-664. (Pubitemid 47383620)
20. Milojkovic M. Residual and recurrent lesions after conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002; 76: 49-53. (Pubitemid 34112508)
21. Chang DY, Cheng WF, Torng PL, Chen RJ, Huang SC. Prediction of residual neoplasia based on histopathology and margin status of conization specimens. Gynecol Oncol 1996; 63: 53-56.
22. Costa S, De Nuzzo M, Terzano P et al. Factors associated with cone margin involvement in CIN patients undergoing conization-equivalent electrosurgical procedure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79: 586-592. (Pubitemid 30433598)
23. Sun XG, Ma SQ, Zhang JX, Wu M. Predictors and clinical significance of the positive cone margin in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III patients. Chin Med J 2009; 122: 367-372.