[Diagnosis and Treatment Value of Colposcopy and Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure in Microinvasive Cervical Cancer: Analysis of 135 Cases].
F Y Xiao,Q Wang,R L Zheng,M Chen,T,L Sui
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2016.03.005
2016-01-01
Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To explore the sensitivity and specificity of colposcopy directed biopsy (CDB) and the value of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) for the diagnosis and treatment of microinvasive cervical cancer (MCC).METHODS:One hundred and thirty five patients with MCC were diagnosed with LEEP in Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University from April 2008 to November 2010, and were retrospectively analyzed on CDB diagnoses and following treatment after LEEP. According to patient's desire for preservation of fertility and cone margin status, following strategies after LEEP included follow-up, second LEEP, hysterectomy, modified radical hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy. Single and multiple factors related to residual lesions after LEEP were analysed with Pearson Chi-square test and logistic regression model, respectively.RESULTS:CDB diagnosed MCC with a sensitivity of 4.4 % (6/135), specificity of 100.0% (4 680/4 680), and false negative rate of 95.6% (129/135). Among the 135 patients, 29 did not receive further treatment in our hospital and lost contact. One hundred and six patients had secondary treatment or follow-up in our hospital, 4 of among which were closely followed up; one hundred and two received further treatment, which included 6 cases with second LEEP (3 received extrafascial hysterectomy after repeat LEEP), 59 cases hysterectomy, 14 cases modified radical hysterectomy and 26 cases radical hysterectomy. For factors related to residual lesions after LEEP, single factor analysis showed that the ratio of residual lesion in patients aged 27-39, 40-49 and 50-65 years were respectively 19.0% (11/58), 15.4% (10/65) and 5/12 (χ(2)=4.505, P=0.105). Residual lesions occurred in 24.7% (23/93) of patients with positive LEEP margins, which was more than that 7.1% (3/42) of patients with negative LEEP margins (χ(2)=5.756, P=0.016). The ratio of residual lesions in patients with positive endocervical, ectocervical and deep stromal margins were respectively 29.6%(8/27), 17.1%(7/41) and 30.6%(11/36; χ(2)= 2.275, P=0.321). Residual lesions in patients with or without lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) were 2/7 and 18.8% (24/128), respectively (χ(2)=0.412, P=0.521). The ratio of residual lesions in patients with invasion depth of <1 mm was 17.1% (7/41), 1-<3 mm was 19.0% (16/84), and 3-5 mm was 3/10, with no significant difference among three groups (χ(2)=0.870, P=0.647). Logistic regression analysis showed positive cone margin (OR=5.069, P=0.014) and age (OR=1.080, P=0.024) were the independent risk factors of residual lesions after LEEP conization.CONCLUSIONS:CDB alone is not adequate for the diagnosis of MCC. For young patients who desire to preserve fertility with a negative cone margin, close follow-up is acceptable. Cone margin status and age are two independent risk factors for residual lesions after LEEP.