The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the surgical excisional procedures for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) treatment both on subsequent fertility (cervical factor) and pregnancy complication (risk of spontaneous preterm delivery). We retrospectively analyzed 236 fertile women who underwent conization for CIN. We included in the study 47 patients who carried on pregnancy and delivered a viable fetus. Patients were asked about postconization pregnancies, obstetrical outcomes, and a possible diagnosis of secondary infertility caused by cervical stenosis. We evaluated the depth of surgical excision, the timing between cervical conization and subsequent pregnancies, surgical technique, and maternal age at delivery. We recorded 47 deliveries, 10 cases of preterm delivery; 8 of them were spontaneous. The depth of surgical excision showed a statistically significant inverse correlation with gestational age at birth. The risk of spontaneous preterm delivery increased when conization depth exceeded a cut-off value of 1.5？cm. Our data do not demonstrated a relation between conization and infertility due to cervical stenosis. 1. Introduction Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is defined as a series of intraepithelial changes which includes nuclear pleomorphism, loss of polarity, and presence of abnormal mitoses. It is confined to squamous epithelium, but it may shift from a benign to a malignant lesion [1]. The risk of cervical cancer in women older than 30 years with carcinoma in situ is estimated at 31% [2]. Although the great majority of all HPV-infections resolve spontaneously within the first 2 years, the subset of infection remained has a high-persistence potential [3]. Management guidelines therefore recommend treatment for women with moderate-to-severe dysplasia [4, 5]. Surgical techniques currently adopted by the majority of the practitioners consist in ablative or excisional approaches. The excisional approach usually performed by laser conisation or large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) or cold knife conisation, offers advantages over the ablative method both permitting the histological investigation of removed lesion and ensuring a greater excision of cervical transformation zone. Indeed, incomplete excisions or destruction of the transformation zone are an important indicator for patients at risk of treatment failure or disease recurrence [6]. Since the great majority of women with high-grade CIN are of reproductive age [7], it is important to not compromise future pregnancies by surgical interventions on
References
[1]
M. F. Mitchell, W. N. Hittelman, W. K. Hong, R. Lotan, and D. Schottenfeld, “The natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: an argument for intermediate endpoint biomarkers,” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 619–626, 1994.
[2]
M. R. McCredie, K. J. Sharples, C. Paul et al., “Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 425–434, 2008.
[3]
C. Saccardi, S. Gizzo, M. Noventa et al., “High-riskhuman papillomavirus DNA test: could it be useful in low-grade cervical lesion triage? five-year follow-Up,” Reproductive Sciences. In press.
[4]
T. C. Wright Jr., L. S. Massad, C. J. Dunton, M. Spitzer, E. J. Wilkinson, and D. Solomon, “2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 197, no. 4, pp. 340–345, 2007.
[5]
J. Jordan, M. Arbyn, P. Martin-Hirsch et al., “European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for clinical management of abnormal cervical cytology, part 1,” Cytopathology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 342–354, 2008.
[6]
P. P. Martin-Hirsch, E. Paraskevaidis, A. Bryant, H. O. Dickinson, and S. L. Keep, “Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 6, Article ID CD001318, 2010.
[7]
E. Paraskevaidis, H. C. Kitchener, I. D. Miller, E. Mann, L. Jandial, and P. M. Fisher, “A population-based study of microinvasive disease of the cervix—a colposcopic and cytologic analysis,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 9–12, 1992.
[8]
J. E. Norman, C. Morris, and J. Chalmers, “The effect of changing patterns of obstetric care in Scotland (1980–2004) on rates of preterm birth and its neonatal consequences: perinatal database study,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 6, no. 9, Article ID e1000153, 2009.
[9]
M. Arbyn, M. Kyrgiou, C. Simoens et al., “Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis,” British Medical Journal, vol. 337, p. a1284, 2008.
[10]
M. Kyrgiou, G. Koliopoulos, P. Martin-Hirsch, M. Arbyn, W. Prendiville, and E. Paraskevaidis, “Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis,” The Lancet, vol. 367, no. 9509, pp. 489–498, 2006.
[11]
M. van Hentenryck, J. C. Noel, and P. Simon, “Obstetric and neonatal outcome after surgical treatment of cervical dysplasia,” European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 162, no. 1, pp. 16–20, 2012.
[12]
M. Kyrgiou, M. Arbyn, P. Martin-Hirsch, and E. Paraskevaidis, “Increased risk of preterm birth after treatment for CIN,” British Medical Journal, vol. 4345, Article ID e5847, 2012.
[13]
D. M. Luesley, A. McCrum, and P. B. Terry, “Complications of cone biopsy related to the dimensions of the cone and the influence of prior colposcopic assessment,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 158–164, 1985.
[14]
L. Sadler, A. Saftlas, W. Wang, M. Exeter, J. Whittaker, and L. McCowan, “Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 291, no. 17, pp. 2100–2106, 2004.
[15]
S.-L. A. Samson, J. R. Bentley, T. J. Fahey, D. J. McKay, and G. H. Gill, “The effect of loop electrosurgical excision procedure on future pregnancy outcome,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 325–332, 2005.
[16]
K. D. Sj？borg, I. Vistad, S. S. Myhr et al., “Pregnancy outcome after cervical cone excision: a case-control study,” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 423–428, 2007.
[17]
B. Noehr, A. Jensen, K. Frederiksen, A. Tabor, and S. K. Kjaer, “Loop electrosurgical excision of the cervix and subsequent risk for spontaneous preterm delivery: a population-based study of singleton deliveries during a 9-year period,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 201, no. 1, pp. 33.e1–33.e6, 2009.
[18]
B. Noehr, A. Jensen, K. Frederiksen, A. Tabor, and S. K. Kjaer, “Loop electrosurgical excision of the cervix and risk for spontaneous preterm delivery in twin pregnancies,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 511–515, 2009.
[19]
M. Jakobsson, M. Gissler, J. Paavonen, and A.-M. Tapper, “Loop electrosurgical excision procedure and the risk for preterm birth,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 504–510, 2009.
[20]
S. Armarnik, E. Sheiner, B. Piura, M. Meirovitz, A. Zlotnik, and A. Levy, “Obstetric outcome following cervical conization,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 283, no. 4, pp. 765–769, 2011.
[21]
K. P. Himes and H. N. Simhan, “Time from cervical conization to pregnancy and preterm birth,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 109, no. 2, part 1, pp. 314–319, 2007.
[22]
G. Acharya, I. Kjeldberg, S. M. Hansen, N. S？rheim, B. K. Jacobsen, and J. M. Maltau, “Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 272, no. 2, pp. 109–112, 2005.
[23]
C. Simoens, F. Goffin, P. Simon, P. Barlow, J. Antoine, and J. M. Foidart, “Arbyn M. Adverse obstetrical outcomes after treatment of precancerous cervical lesions: a Belgian multicentre study,” An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, vol. 119, no. 10, pp. 1247–1255, 2012.
[24]
M. Jakobsson, M. Gissler, S. Sainio, J. Paavonen, and A.-M. Tapper, “Preterm delivery after surgical treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 109, no. 2, part 1, pp. 309–313, 2007.
[25]
M. Jakobsson, M. Gissler, S. Sainio, J. Paavonen, and A. M. Tapper, “Erratum in: Preterm delivery after surgical treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 112, no. 4, 2008.
[26]
B. Noehr, A. Jensen, K. Frederiksen, A. Tabor, and S. K. Kjaer, “Depth of cervical cone removed by loop electrosurgical excision procedure and subsequent risk of spontaneous preterm delivery,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 114, no. 6, pp. 1232–1238, 2009.
[27]
S. Khalid, E. Dimitriou, R. Conroy et al., “The thickness and volume of LLETZ specimens can predict the relative risk of pregnancy-related morbidity,” An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 685–691, 2012.
[28]
J.-J. Baldauf, M. Dreyfus, J. Ritter, P. Meyer, and E. Philippe, “Risk of cervical stenosis after large loop excision or laser conization,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 933–938, 1996.
[29]
G. Larsson, B. Gullberg, and H. Grundsell, “A comparison of complications of laser and cold knife conization,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 213–217, 1983.
[30]
A. C. S. Monteiro, F. B. Russomano, M. J. de Camargo, K. S. da Silva, F. R. Veiga, and R. G. Oliveira, “Cervical stenosis following electrosurgical conization,” Sao Paulo Medical Journal, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 209–214, 2008.
[31]
S. Gizzo, M. Noventa, and G. B. Nardelli, “Gardasil administration to hr-HPV-positive women and their partners,” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 479–480, 2013.
