Rate of Involved Endocervical Margins According to High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Subtype and Transformation Zone Type in Specimens with Cone Length ≤ 10 mm versus > 10 mm-A Retrospective Analysis.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the endocervical margin status according to transformation zone (TZ) and high-risk HPV (hr-HPV) subtype in specimens with cone length ≤ 10 mm versus > 10 mm to provide data for informed decision making and patients counseling especially for women wishing to conceive. In this retrospective cohort study, 854 patients who underwent large loop excision of the transformation zone during a nine-year period (2013-2021) for cervical disease were analyzed. The main outcome parameters were excision length, histological result, TZ type, HPV subtype and endocervical margin status. A subgroup analysis was performed according to excision length, with a cut-off value of 10 mm. A two-step surgical procedure was performed in case of an excision length of > 10 mm. The overall rate of positive endocervical margins irrespective of excision length was 17.2%, with 19.3% in specimens with ≤ 10 mm and 15.0% with > 10 mm excision length. Overall, 41.2% of women with a visible TZ and HPV 16/hr infection and 27.0% of women with HPV 18 received an excisional treatment of > 10 mm length without further oncological benefit, respectively. In contrast, assuming that only an excision of ≤ 10 mm length had been performed in women with visible TZ, the rate of clear endocervical margins would have been 63.7% for HPV 16/hr infections and 49.3% for HPV 18 infections. In conclusion, the decision about excision length should be discussed with the patient in terms of oncological safety and the risk of adverse pregnancy events. An excision length > 10 mm increases the number of cases with cervical tissue removed without further oncological benefit, which needs to be taken into account in order to provide an individual therapeutic approach. Furthermore, HPV 18 positivity is related to a higher rate of positive endocervical margins irrespective of TZ.

[1]  M. Follmann,et al.  Implementation and update of guideline-derived quality indicators for cervical cancer in gynecological cancer centers certified by the German Cancer Society (DKG) , 2023, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[2]  P. Vercellini,et al.  Should attention be paid to the cone depth in the fully visible transformation zone? Retrospective analysis of 517 patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 , 2023 .

[3]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  Outcomes of High-Grade Cervical Dysplasia with Positive Margins and HPV Persistence after Cervical Conization , 2023, Vaccines.

[4]  J. Teixeira,et al.  Endocervical Margins Status in Excision for Preventing Cervical Cancer According to the Transformation Zone Type , 2022, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[5]  J. Bornstein,et al.  Terminology for cone dimensions after local conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and early invasive cervical cancer: 2022 consensus recommendations from ESGO, EFC, IFCPC, and ESP. , 2022, The Lancet. Oncology.

[6]  S. Glew,et al.  The use of biomarkers and HPV genotyping to improve diagnostic accuracy in women with a transformation zone type 3 , 2021, British Journal of Cancer.

[7]  L. Sadler,et al.  Predicting regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 in women under 25 years. , 2021, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  H. Trottier,et al.  Association Between Human Papillomavirus Infection Among Pregnant Women and Preterm Birth , 2021, JAMA network open.

[9]  Cuifang Fan,et al.  The trend in delayed childbearing and its potential consequences on pregnancy outcomes: a single center 9-years retrospective cohort study in Hubei, China , 2021, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[10]  Xiao Zhang,et al.  Evaluation of cervical length and optimal timing for pregnancy after cervical conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 2020, Medicine.

[11]  J. Martínez-Cendán,et al.  Is large loop excision of the transformation zone depth a risk factor for affected endocervical margins? , 2020, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

[12]  M. Schiffman,et al.  Risk Estimates Supporting the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines , 2020, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[13]  D. Teoh,et al.  Diagnosis and Management of Adenocarcinoma in Situ , 2020, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  J. Martínez-Cendán,et al.  Does the trend toward less deep excisions in LLETZ to minimize obstetric risk lead to less favorable oncological outcomes? , 2019, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[15]  A. Goldstein,et al.  Cervical Cancer Screening: Past, Present, and Future. , 2019, Sexual medicine reviews.

[16]  A. Ciavattini,et al.  Age-Related Changes in the Fraction of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 3 Related to HPV Genotypes Included in the Nonavalent Vaccine , 2019, Journal of oncology.

[17]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Human papilloma virus genotyping for the cross‐sectional and longitudinal probability of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more , 2018, International journal of cancer.

[18]  S. Leeson,et al.  Incomplete excision of cervical precancer as a predictor of treatment failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2017, The Lancet. Oncology.

[19]  M. Paraskevaidi,et al.  Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial lesions and early invasive disease. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[20]  L. Bruni,et al.  Epidemiology and burden of HPV-related disease. , 2017, Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology.

[21]  M. Plummer,et al.  Worldwide burden of cancer attributable to HPV by site, country and HPV type , 2017, International journal of cancer.

[22]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[23]  K. Dybkær,et al.  Human Papillomavirus Infection as a Possible Cause of Spontaneous Abortion and Spontaneous Preterm Delivery , 2016, Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology.

[24]  S. Leeson,et al.  Utility of EFC quality indicators for colposcopy in daily practice: results from an independent, prospective multicenter trial. , 2015, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[25]  G. Gardini,et al.  High-grade CIN on cervical biopsy and predictors of the subsequent cone histology results in women undergoing immediate conization. , 2015, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[26]  Yonghee Lee,et al.  Value of endocervical margin and high-risk human papillomavirus status after conization for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ, and microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. , 2014, Gynecologic oncology.

[27]  J. Quaas,et al.  Explanation and Use of the Rio 2011 Colposcopy Nomenclature of the IFCPC (International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy): Comments on the general colposcopic assessment of the uterine cervix: adequate/inadequate; squamocolumnar junction; transformation zone. , 2014, Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde.

[28]  Alyce A. Chen,et al.  Human Papillomavirus 18 Genetic Variation and Cervical Cancer Risk Worldwide , 2014, Journal of Virology.

[29]  H. Bae,et al.  The appropriate cone depth to avoid endocervical margin involvement is dependent on age and disease severity , 2013, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[30]  A. Antsaklis,et al.  Appropriate Cone Dimensions to Achieve Negative Excision Margins after Large Loop Excision of Transformation Zone in the Uterine Cervix for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia , 2012, Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation.

[31]  G. Koliopoulos,et al.  Large loop excision of the transformation zone and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a 22-year experience. , 2012, Anticancer research.

[32]  S. Tatti,et al.  2011 colposcopic terminology of the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. , 2012, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[33]  W. Prendiville,et al.  The thickness and volume of LLETZ specimens can predict the relative risk of pregnancy‐related morbidity , 2012, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[34]  R. Rindfuss,et al.  Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. , 2011, Human reproduction update.

[35]  C. Burnley,et al.  Histological recurrence and depth of loop treatment of the cervix in women of reproductive age: incomplete excision versus adverse pregnancy outcome , 2011, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[36]  P. Suprasert,et al.  “Top hat” versus conventional loop electrosurgical excision procedure in women with a type 3 transformation zone , 2010, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[37]  S. Kjaer,et al.  Depth of Cervical Cone Removed by Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure and Subsequent Risk of Spontaneous Preterm Delivery , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[38]  L. Svenson,et al.  Delayed childbearing and its impact on population rate changes in lower birth weight, multiple birth, and preterm delivery. , 2002, Pediatrics.

[39]  Chen Li,et al.  Pregnancy outcome following loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2013, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.