Long-term outcomes of a loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in a high incidence country

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 1035-1039

  Sangkarat, Suthi ^a   Ruengkhachorn, Irene ^a   Benjapibal, Mongkol ^a   Laiwejpithaya, Somsak ^a   Wongthiraporn, Weerasak ^a   Rattanachaiyanont, Manee ^a  

^a MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Cervical neoplasia; Loop electrosurgical excision procedure; Outcomes; Thailand

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; COLPOSCOPY; ELECTROSURGERY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PATHOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; SURVIVAL RATE; THAILAND; TIME; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COLPOSCOPY; ELECTROSURGERY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREGNANCY; PROGNOSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SURVIVAL RATE; THAILAND; TIME FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84894653443     PISSN: 15137368     EISSN: 2476762X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.2.1035     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Acharya G, Kjeldberg I, Hansen SM, et al (2005). Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 272, 109-12.
2. Alvarez RD, Helm CW, Edwards RP, et al (1994). Prospective randomized trial of LLETZ versus laser ablation in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol, 52, 175-9.
3. Ayhan A, Boynukalin FK, Guven S, et al (2009). Repeat LEEP conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and positive ectocervicalmargins. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 105, 14-7.
4. Bevis KS, Biggio JR (2011). Cervical conization and the risk of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 205, 19-27.
5. Dey P, Gibbs A, Arnold DF, et al (2002). Loop diathermy excision compared with cervical laservaporisation for the treatment of intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG, 109, 381-5.
6. Giacalone PL, Laffargue F, Aligier N, et al (1999). Randomized study comparing two techniques of conization: cold knife versus loop excision. Gynecol Oncol, 75, 356-60.
7. Kietpeerakool C, Khunamornpong S, Srisomboon J, et al (2007). 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, 33, 660-4.
8. Kir G, Karabulut MH, Topal CS, et al (2012).Endocervical glandular involvement, positive endocervical surgical margin and multicentricity are more often associated with high-grade than low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 38, 1206-10.
9. Lodi CT, Michelin MA, Lima MI, et al (2011). Factors associated with recurrence of cervical intraepithelialneoplasia after conization in HIV-infected and noninfected women. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 284, 191-7.
10. st ed. Sheffield, UK: NHSCSP2004.
11. Mathevet P, Chemali E, Roy M, et al (2003). Long-term outcome of a randomized study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 106, 214-8.
12. Mathevet P, Dargent D, Roy M, et al (1994). A randomized prospective study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Gynecol Oncol, 54, 175-9.
13. Pecorelli S (2009). Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 105, 103-4.
14. Prendiville W, Cullimore J, Norman S (1989). Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ).A new method of management for women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 96, 1054-60.
15. Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W, et al (2004). Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA, 291, 2100-6.
16. Shin JW, Rho HS, Park CY (2009). Factors influencing the choice between cold knife conization and loop electrosurgical excisional procedure for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 35, 126-30.
17. Sjoborg KD, Vistad I, Myhr SS, et al (2007). Pregnancy outcome after cervical cone excision: a case-control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 86, 423-8.
18. Reich O, Pickel H, Lahousen M, et al (2001). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III: long-term outcome after cold-knife conization with clear margins. Obstet Gynecol, 97, 428-30.
19. Wright TC Jr, Richart RM, Ferenczy A, et al (1992). Comparison of specimens removed by CO2 laser conization and the loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Obstet Gynecol, 79, 147-53.
20. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al (2007).2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical screening tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis, 11, 201-22.
21. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al (2007).2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. J Low Genit Tract Dis, 11, 223-39.