Predictors and clinical significance of the positive cone margin in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Ⅲ patients

( views:70, downloads:0 )
Author:
SUN Xiao-guang(Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China)
MA Shui-qing(Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China)
ZHANG Jin-xia(Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China)
WU Ming(Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China)
Journal Title:
CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL
Issue:
Volume 122, Issue 04, 2009
DOI:
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2009.04.002
Key Word:
conization; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; factor analysis

Abstract: Background Conization is being widely accepted for diagnosis and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). There is controversy as to which factors are most predictive of a positive cone margin and the clinical significance of it. We conducted this study to identify the predictive factors and to evaluate the clinical significance of a positive cone margin in CIN Ⅲ patients.Methods A retrospective review was conducted of 207 patients who had undergone conization due to CIN Ⅲ from January 2003 to December 2005 at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Of these, 67 had a subsequent hysterectomy. Univariate and multivariate analysis were utilized to define the predictive factors for a positive cone margin, and to compare the pathologic results of conization with subsequent hysterectomy.Results One hundred and fifty-one (72.9%) were margin free of CIN Ⅰ or worse, 37 (17.9%) had CIN lesions close to the margin and 19 (9.2%) had margin involvement. A total of 56 cases (27.1%) had positive cone margins (defined as the presence of CIN at or close to the edge of a cone specimen). Univariate analysis showed that the parity, cytological grade, multi-quadrants of CIN Ⅲ by punch biopsy, gland involvement, as well as the depth of conization were significant factors correlated with a positive cone margin (P<0.05). However the age, gravidity, grade of dysplasia in punch biopsy, as well as the cone methods were not significantly correlated (P >0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that the cytological grade (OR=1.92), depth of conization (OR=2.03), parity (OR=3.02) and multi-quadrants of CIN Ⅲ (OR=4.60) were significant predictors with increased risk for positive margin. The frequency of residual CIN Ⅰ or worse in hysterectomy specimens was found to be 55.6% (20/36) in patients who were margin free, 71.4% (15/21) in patients with CIN occurring close to margin, and 80.0% (8/10) in patients with margin involvement. The frequency of residual CIN Ⅲ or worse was found to be 13.9% (5/36), 23.8% (5/21) and 50.0% (5/10) respectively in different groups.Conclusions Cytological grade, depth of conization, parity and multi-quadrants of CIN Ⅲ in punch biopsy were significant factors with increased risk in predicting a positive cone margin. Margin status of conization did not mean the presence or absence of CIN, but rather the varied frequency of residual CIN in specimens of subsequent hysterectomy. In view of this fact, it is suggested that the margin status of conization be a valuable surrogate marker for clinical management of CIN Ⅲ.

  • [1]Shen K,Lang JH,Huang HF,Wu M,Shi M,Pan LY,et al.Evaluation of cervical conization in diagnosis and management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasm.Chin J Gynecol Obstet (Chin) 2001; 36:264-266.
  • [2]Song XH.Application of three-stage diagnosis and treatment process in screening,diagnosis and treatment of cervical precancerous lesions.Chin J Pract Gynecol Obstet (Chin) 2007; 23:499-501.
  • [3]Solomon D,Davey D,Kurman R,Moriarty A,O'Connor D,Prev M,et al.The 2001 Bethesda System:terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology.JAMA 2002; 287:2114-2119.
  • [4]Wright TC Jr,Cox JT,Massad LS,Twiggs LB,Wilkinson EJ.2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities.JAMA 2002; 287:2120-2129.
  • [5]Shen K.Choices among the iatrotechnics for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.Natl Med J China (Chin) 2006; 86:291-294.
  • [6]Wright TC Jr,Massad LS,Dunton CJ,Spitzer M,Wilkinson EJ,Soioman D.2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197:340-345.
  • [7]Tillrnanns TD,Falkner CA,Engle DB,Wan JY,Mannel RS,Walker JL,et al.Preoperative predictors of positive margins after loop electrosurgical excisional procedure-Cone.Gynecologic Oncology 2006; 100:379-384.
  • [8]Kietpeerakool C,Srisomboon J,Ratchusiri K.Clinicopathologic predictors of incomplete excision after loop electrosurgical excision for cervical preneoplasia.Asia Pac J Cancer Prev 2005; 6:481-484.
  • [9]Costa S,De Nuzzo M,Terzano P.Santini D,De Simone P.Bovicelli A,et al.Factors associated with cone margin involvement in CIN patients undergoing conization-equivalent electrosurgical procedure.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79:586-592.
  • [10]Insinga RP,Dasbach EJ,Elbasha EH,Liaw KL,Barr E.Progression and regression of incident cervical HPV 6,11,16 and 18 infections in young women.Infect Agent Cancer 2007; 2:15-24.
  • [11]Micheal S Baggish.Treatment of Cervical Intra-epithelial Neoplasia.In:Micheal S Baggish.Colposcopy of the cervix,vagina,and vulva:a comprehensive textbook.Pennsylvania:Mosby,an affiliate of Elsevier Science (USA) 2003; 263-286.
  • [12]Dai ZQ,Pan LY,Huang HF,Lang JH.Evaluation of cervical intraepitheliai neoplasia positive cutting edge after conization.Chin J Oncol (Chin) 2007; 29:153-154.
  • [13]Alonso I,Torne A,Puig-Tintore LM,Esteve R,Quinto L,Campo E,et al.Pre-and post-conization high-risk HPV testing predicts residual/recurrent disease in patients treated for CIN 2-3.Gynecol Oncol 2006; 103:631-636.
  • [14]Lu CH,Liu FS,Kuo CJ,Chang CC,Ho ES.Prediction of persistence or recurrence after conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Ⅲ.Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:830-835.
  • [15]Moore BC,Higgins RV,Laurent SL,Marroum MC,Bellitt P.Predictive factors from cold knife eonization for residual cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in subsequent hysterectomy.Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174:1079-1080.
  • [16]Husseinzadeh N,Shbaro L,Wesseler T.Predictive value of cone margins and post-cone endocervical curettage with residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy.Gynecol Oncol 1989; 33:198-200.
  • [17]Reich O,Lahousen M,Pickel H,Tamussino K,Winter R.Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Ⅲ:long-term follow-up after cold-knife conization with involved margins.Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:193-196.
WanfangData CO.,Ltd All Rights Reserved
About WanfangData | Contact US
Healthcare Department, Fuxing Road NO.15, Haidian District Beijing, 100038 P.R.China
Tel:+86-010-58882616 Fax:+86-010-58882615 Email:yiyao@wanfangdata.com.cn