4.6 Article

Management of stage Ia1 squamous cervical cancer and the importance of excision margins: a retrospective study of long-term outcome after 25 years of follow-up

Journal

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.032

Keywords

cervical cancer; CIN; conization; margins; microinvasion; recurrence

Funding

  1. Biomedical Research Center at Imperial College London

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the excision margin after cone for stage Ia1 cervical cancer on long-term outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. Patients were divided into 3 groups. Group A underwent immediate reflex hysterectomy; group B had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) at the margins but were followed up; group C had clear margins. RESULTS: We identified 111 women: 19 (17.1%) in group A; 29 (26.1%) in group B; and 63 (56.8%) in group C. Women in group A were older (median, 40 years vs 35 years; P=.0001) with higher rate of endocervical margin involvement (89.5 vs 48.1%, P=.007) than in group B. The women had been followed for a total of 960 woman-years with median follow-up of 398 weeks (quartiles: 258,612). Women with clear margins in the initial excision were more likely to remain free of disease than those with involved (P < .0001). Further surgery was required due to abnormal cytology in 9 (31.0%) women from group B and 7 (11.1%) from group C (P = .04). The cumulative rate of recurrent CIN2+ was 6.4% in group B and 2.7% in group C (P = .17). In group B, recurrences were more common in positive endocervical rather than ectocervical margins (66.6% vs 33.4%, P < .05); all had high-grade CIN at the margins. CONCLUSION: The risk of posttreatment CIN2+ is substantially reduced when complete excision is achieved at first treatment. Conservative management is contraindicated in women with microinvasion at the margin. When CIN involves the margin, there is a greater risk of residual disease and of further treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available