Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after treatment: long-term follow-up from the British Columbia Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND Information on the long-term risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) recurrence among women treated for CIN is limited yet critical for evidence-based surveillance recommendations. METHODS We retrospectively identified 37,142 women treated for CIN 1, 2, or 3 from January 1, 1986, through December 31, 2000 (CIN cohort), from the British Columbia Cancer Agency cytology database and linked their records with cancer registry and vital statistics data. Treatment included cryotherapy, loop electrosurgical excision procedure, cone biopsy, and laser vaporization or excision. A comparison cohort contained 71,213 women with normal cytology and no previous CIN diagnosis. Follow-up continued through December 31, 2004. Among women in both cohorts under active surveillance, we compared rates of CIN 2 or 3 (CIN 2/3) and cervical cancer. Cumulative incidence rates of CIN 2/3 and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by a life table approach by using annual rates. Cumulative rates of invasive cancer were examined by the person-years method. RESULTS Overall observed cumulative rates of CIN 2/3 in the first 6 years after treatment were 14.0% (95% CI = 13.84% to 14.15%) for women originally treated for CIN 3, 9.3% (95% CI = 9.09% to 9.42%) for CIN 2, and 5.6% (95% CI = 4.91% to 5.21%) for CIN 1. Annual rates of CIN 2/3 were less than 1% after 6 years. Initial diagnosis, age, and treatment type were associated with a diagnosis of CIN 2/3 after treatment, with 6-year adjusted rates for women aged 40-49 years ranging from 2.6% (95% CI = 1.9% to 3.4%) for treatment of CIN 1 with the loop electrosurgical excision procedure to 34.0% (95% CI = 30.9% to 37.1%) for treatment of CIN 3 with cryotherapy. Overall incidence of invasive cancer (per 100,000 woman-years) was higher in the CIN cohort (37 invasive cancers, 95% CI = 30.6 to 42.5 cancers) than in the comparison cohort (six cancers, 95% CI = 4.3 to 7.7 cancers). Cryotherapy, compared with other treatments, was associated with the highest rate of subsequent disease (adjusted odds ratio for invasive cancer = 2.98, 95% CI = 2.09 to 4.60). CONCLUSION Risk of CIN 2/3 after treatment was associated with initial CIN grade, treatment type, and age. Long-term risk of invasive cancer remained higher among women treated for CIN, particularly those treated with cryotherapy.

[1]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Re: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after treatment: long-term follow-up from the British Columbia Cohort Study. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  B. Chan,et al.  Posttreatment human papillomavirus testing for recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review. , 2009, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  L. Irgens,et al.  Pregnancy Outcome in Women Before and After Cervical Conisation: Population-Based Cohort Study , 2009 .

[4]  W. Prendiville,et al.  Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  I. Milsom,et al.  Long term risk of invasive cancer after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3: population based cohort study , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  S. Kehoe,et al.  Management of minor cervical cytological abnormalities: a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature. , 2007, Cancer treatment reviews.

[7]  T. Wright,et al.  2006 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Abnormal Cervical Screening Tests , 2007, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[8]  P. Sarhanis,et al.  Precancerous changes in the cervix and risk of subsequent preterm birth , 2007, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[9]  M Arbyn,et al.  Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2006, The Lancet.

[10]  E. Pukkala,et al.  Risk of cervical and other cancers after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: retrospective cohort study , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  M. Martino,et al.  2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2004, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  J. T. Cox,et al.  2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2003, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[13]  J. T. Cox,et al.  Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  Joan L. Walker A randomized trial on the management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  P. Dey,et al.  Loop diathermy excision compared with cervical laser vaporisation for the treatment of intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial , 2002, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[16]  K. Tamussino,et al.  Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia III: Long‐Term Outcome After Cold‐Knife Conization With Clear Margins , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  A. Willan,et al.  Treatment outcomes for squamous intraepithelial lesions , 2000, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[18]  A. Fletcher,et al.  Invasive cervical cancer after conservative therapy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 1997, The Lancet.

[19]  A. Miller,et al.  Screening for cancer of the cervix. , 1991, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[20]  F. Pettersson,et al.  Invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix following diagnosis and treatment of in situ carcinoma. Record linkage study within a National Cancer Registry. , 1989, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[21]  N. Day,et al.  Screening for cancer of the cervix. , 1989, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[22]  J. L. Benedet,et al.  Organisation and results of the cervical cytology screening programme in British Columbia, 1955-85 , 1988, British medical journal.

[23]  J. Carmichael Cervical cancer screening program. , 1976, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[24]  L. Shulman Long-term risk of invasive cervical cancer after treatment of squamous cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 2007 .

[25]  Results of a randomized trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[26]  Z. Chirenje,et al.  A randomised clinical trial of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) versus cryotherapy in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2001, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

[27]  S. Woolf Screening for Cervical Cancer , 1990 .

[28]  R. Lawrence,et al.  Preventing disease : beyond the rhetoric , 1990 .