Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure and the Risk for Preterm Delivery
ABSTRACT : To estimate whether the severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) increase the risk for preterm delivery, and to evaluate the role of repeat LEEP and time interval since LEEP.
: This was a retrospective register-based study from Finland from 1997 to 2009. We linked Hospital Discharge Register and Finnish Medical Birth Register data. Case group women consisted of 20,011 women who underwent LEEP during the study period and their subsequent singleton deliveries in 1998-2009. Control population included women from the Medical Birth Register with no LEEP (n=430,975). The main outcome measure was preterm delivery before 37 weeks of gestation.
: The risk for preterm delivery increased after LEEP. Women with previous LEEP had 547 (7.2%) preterm deliveries, whereas the control population had 30,151 (4.6%) preterm deliveries (odds ratio [OR] 1.61, confidence interval [CI] 1.47-1.75, number needed to harm 38.5). The overall preterm delivery rate in the study period was 4.6% for singleton deliveries. Repeat LEEP was associated with an almost threefold risk for preterm delivery (OR 2.80, CI 2.28-3.44). The severity of CIN did not increase the risk for preterm delivery. However, with LEEP for carcinoma in situ or microinvasive cancer, the risk for preterm delivery was higher (OR 2.55, CI 1.68-3.87). The increased risk also was associated with non-CIN lesions (OR 2.04, CI 1.46-2.87). Similarly, the risk was increased after diagnostic LEEP (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.16-1.67). Time interval since LEEP was not associated with preterm delivery. Adjusting for maternal age, parity, socioeconomic or marital status, urbanism, and previous preterm deliveries did not change the results.
: The risk for preterm delivery was increased after LEEP regardless of the histopathologic diagnosis. The risk was highest after repeat LEEP, which should be avoided, especially among women of reproductive age.
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grading is subjective and affected by substantial rates of discordance among pathologists. Although the use of p16INK4a (p16) staining has been proven to improve diagnostic accuracy for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), the clinical evidence for use of Ki-67 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) is insufficient to make an independent recommendation for use, alone or in combination. The primary objective was to evaluate clinical utility of Ki-67 and PCNA in combination with p16 in diagnosing HSIL. Also, we assessed the correlation between expressions of three biomarkers and resection margin status of conization specimen. The expressions of p16, Ki-67, and PCNA were evaluated by immunohistochemical methods in 149 cervical tissues encompassing 17 negative lesion, 31 CIN 1, 25 CIN 2, 41 CIN 3, and 35 invasive squamous cell carcinoma. The immunohistochemical staining results were classified into four grades: 0, 1+, 2+ and 3+. The expression of three biomarkers was positively associated with CIN grade. Ki-67 immunostaining did not increase the accuracy of HSIL diagnosis when combined with p16 immunostaining compared with p16 immunostaining alone. In contrast, combining the staining results for p16 and PCNA (p16 = 3+ and PCNA ≥2+) increased its specificity (66.7% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.031) without decrease of its sensitivity (98.7% vs. 98.7%) for diagnosis of CIN 3 and more sever lesion. Subgroup analysis for conization specimen with CIN 2 and CIN 3 showed that positive Ki-67 immunostaining was an independent risk factor for predicting resection margin positivity (odds ratio = 6.52, 95% confidence interval 1.07-39.64). We found that the combined use of p16 and PCNA immunostaining enhanced diagnostic accuracy for HSIL. Positive Ki-67 immunostaining was associated with incomplete excision.03/2015; 20(1):70-7. DOI:10.15430/JCP.2015.20.1.70
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Since the routine screening program for cervical dysplasia by Pap smear was established in the early 1970s, the rate of cervical cancer has continually dropped. Even if a high percentage of cervical dysplasia shows spontaneous restitution, the only effective therapy for persisting cervical dysplasia is local ablation or excision which might be associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery in subsequent pregnancies. However, data from German patients are missing, so the aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of preterm delivery and associated risks in a cohort of patients who had undergone cervical conisation previous to their pregnancies.Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 09/2014; 291(3). DOI:10.1007/s00404-014-3463-6 · 1.28 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate adherence to the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines among health care providers in a large health maintenance organization. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey evaluating knowledge, reported practices, and views of the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines was distributed to 325 health care providers within HealthPartners. The survey was divided into 3 sections: (1) provider demographics; (2) knowledge of the 2012 age-specific cancer screening guidelines; and (3) provider practice. Comparisons based on appropriate knowledge and practice of the guidelines were made using Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: The response rate was 42%. Of 124 respondents, 15 (12.1%) reported they were not aware of the 2012 guideline changes. Only 7 (5.7%) respondents answered all the knowledge questions correctly. A majority of respondents reported correct screening practices in the 21-29 year patient age group (65.8%) and in the >65 year patient age group (74.3%). Correct screening intervals in the 30-65 year patient age group varied by modality, with 89.3% correctly screening every 3 years with Pap smear alone, but only 57.4% correctly screening every 5 years with Pap smear + human papillomavirus cotesting. The most frequently cited reasons for not adhering were lack of knowledge of the guidelines and patient demand for a different screening interval. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines is poor due, in part, to a lack of knowledge of the guidelines. Efforts should focus on improved provider and patient education, and methods that facilitate adherence to the guidelines such as electronic health record order sets.American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 06/2014; 212(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.057 · 3.97 Impact Factor