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.
暂无分享,去创建一个
R. Ristl | E. Langthaler | E. Joura | S. Pils | Chiara Paternostro | Christina Ranftl | Tim Dorritke
[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.