Background. Since the preconisation presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) is the main determinant of the risk of progression of preinvasive lesions; the state of the excision margins could be of less importance. Relatively little is known about the effect of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection on the relation between the states of the excision margins. Methods. We compared 120 HIV-infected and 139 HIV-uninfected women who underwent a hysterectomy after large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) for abnormal Pap smear. Results. The excision margins had been reported negative in 21.7% of infected and 7.8% of uninfected cases ( ). Three (11.5%) of 26 negative margins in HIV-infected and 2 (18.2) out of HIV-uninfected cases were falsely negative as evidenced on hysterectomy specimens ( ). The persistence rate of the initial lesion was similar in both groups ( ). The persistence rate with highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART) was similar to untreated patients ( ). The progression rate from low-grade to high-grade preinvasive lesions was higher in HIV-infected than HIV-uninfected women ( ). Conclusion. HIV-infected women with incomplete excision margins after LLETZ are at higher risk of progression of residual preneoplastic lesions. 1. Introduction The prevention of cervical cancer is twin-pronged: primary (i.e., vaccination and life style) and secondary (i.e., screening and treatment). Many screening strategies are still under investigation and awaiting validation. They comprise cytology and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, visualization of the cervix (naked eye, colposcopy, and cervicography), and excision or destruction of preinvasive lesions [1]. Destruction (by cryotherapy or laser) has the disadvantage of lacking “gold standard” biopsy confirmation but the advantage of on the spot treatment (see and treat) [2]. This is of special importance in low-resource settings (LRS). Excision methods are many: cold knife conisation (CKC) and thermal excision called either large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) or loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP). Both allow for histopathological diagnosis although, as opposed to CKC, they have the possible disadvantage of burn artifacts of the excision margins. The state of the excision margins (healthy or involved by the preneoplastic process) is, arguably, a prognostic indicator and a guide to further follow-up [3]. LRS like sub-Saharan Africa carry the double burden of inexistent or inefficient screening programs and high cervical cancer and human
References
[1]
L. J. van Bogaert, “Cervical cancer prevention in resource-limited settings with special emphasis on areas of high cervical cancer and human immunodeficiency virus endemicity,” in Human Papillomavirus: Prevalence, Detection, and Management, H. B. Smith, Ed., pp. 405–419, Nova Publishers, New York, NY, USA, 2013.
[2]
K. S. Pfaendler, M. H. Mwanahamuntu, V. V. Sahasrabuddhe, V. Mudenda, J. S. A. Stringer, and G. P. Parham, “Management of cryotherapy-ineligible women in a “screen-and-treat” cervical cancer prevention program targeting HIV-infected women in Zambia: lessons from the field,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 402–407, 2008.
[3]
L. J. van Bogaert, “Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ): a pathology evaluation in the Limpopo Province, South Africa,” Southern African Journal of Gynaecologic Oncology, vol. 3, pp. 66–69, 2011.
[4]
L. Nappi, C. Carriero, S. Bettocchi, J. Herrero, A. Vimercati, and G. Putignano, “Cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions of low-grade in HIV-infected women: recurrence, persistence, and progression, in treated and untreated women,” European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 226–232, 2005.
[5]
Y. Adam, C. J. van Gelderen, G. de Bruyn, J. A. McIntyre, D. A. Turton, and N. A. Martinson, “Predictors of persistent cytologic abnormalities after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in Soweto, South Africa: a cohort study in a HIV high prevalence population,” BMC Cancer, vol. 8, article 211, 2008.
[6]
M. I. Lima, A. Tafuri, A. C. Araújo, L. de Miranda Lima, and V. H. Melo, “Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia recurrence after conization in HIV-positive and HIV-negative women,” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 100–104, 2009.
[7]
C. T. Lodi, M. A. Michelin, M. I. Lima et al., “Factors associated with recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after conization in HIV-infected and noninfected women,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 284, no. 1, pp. 191–197, 2011.
[8]
P. M. Tebeu, A. L. Major, P. Mhawech, and E. Rapiti, “The recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in HIV-positive women: a review of the literature,” International Journal of STD and AIDS, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 507–511, 2006.
[9]
H. Foulot, I. Heard, V. Potard, D. Costagliola, and C. Chapron, “Surgical management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in HIV-infected women,” European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 141, no. 2, pp. 153–157, 2008.
[10]
O. Sanu, A. Pal, and S. George, “A pilot study comparing efficacy of a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia excisor with loop electrosurgical excision procedure,” European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 151, no. 1, pp. 91–95, 2010.
[11]
E. Mulhem, E. L. Kennedy, and D. Lick, “Treatment of cervical dysplasia with the Fischer cone biopsy excisor in a Family Medicine Office: a case series,” Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 154–158, 2010.
[12]
A. Treacy, D. Devaney, N. J. Mulligan, W. Boyd, and J. C. Keane, “Can a more detailed evaluation of excision margins refine cytologic follow-up of women post-LLETZ for high-grade dysplasia?” International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 479–482, 2010.
[13]
A. Baloglu, D. Uysal, I. Bezircioglu, M. Bicer, and A. Inci, “Residual and recurrent disease rates following LEEP treatment in high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 282, no. 1, pp. 69–73, 2010.
[14]
C. D. I. Gonzalez, L. C. C. M. Zahn, M. M. G. Retzloff, M. W. F. Moore, L. C. E. R. Kost, and C. R. R. Snyder, “Recurrence of dysplasia after loop electrosurgical excision procedures with long-term follow-up,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 184, no. 3, pp. 315–321, 2001.
[15]
C. Kietpeerakool, J. Srisomboon, P. Suprasert et al., “Outcomes of loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical neoplasia in human immunodeficiency virus-infected women,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1082–1088, 2006.
[16]
M. Matsumura, T. Ota, N. Takeshima, and K. Takizawa, “Shimodaira-Taniguchi conization method: its utility and reliability,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1025–1030, 2010.
[17]
D. Wu, Y. Zheng, W. Chen et al., “Prediction of residual/recurrent disease by HPV Genotype after loop excision procedure for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with negative margins,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 114–118, 2011.
[18]
A. Lubrano, N. Medina, V. Benito et al., “Follow-up after LLETZ: a study of 682 cases of CIN 2-CIN 3 in a single institution,” European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 161, no. 1, pp. 71–74, 2012.
[19]
D. Ulrich, K. Tamussino, E. Petru, J. Haas, and O. Reich, “Conization of the uterine cervix: does the level of gynaecologist’s training predict margin status?” International Journal of Gynecologic Pathology, vol. 31, pp. 382–386, 2012.
[20]
B. D. Duggan, J. C. Felix, L. I. Muderspach et al., “Cold-knife conization versus conization by the loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a randomized, prospective study,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 180, no. 2 I, pp. 276–282, 1999.
[21]
J. W. Shin, H. S. Rho, and C. Y. Park, “Factors influencing the choice between cold knife conization and loop electrosurgical excisional procedure for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 126–130, 2009.
[22]
L. L. Reimers, S. Sotardi, D. Daniel et al., “Outcomes after an excisional procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in HIV-infected women,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 92–97, 2010.
[23]
G. G. Miroshnichenko, M. Parva, D. O. Holtz, J. A. Klemens, and C. J. Dunton, “Interpretability of excisional biopsies of the cervix: cone biopsy and loop excision,” Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 10–12, 2009.
[24]
L. A. Boardman, M. M. Steinhoff, R. Shackelton, S. Weitzen, and L. Crowthers, “A randomized trial of the Fischer cone biopsy excisor and loop electrosurgical excision procedure,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 745–750, 2004.
[25]
Y. Miyoshi, T. Miyatake, Y. Ueda et al., “Prediction, based on resection margins, of long-term outcome of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 treated by Shimodaira-Taniguchi conization,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 285, no. 5, pp. 1427–1432, 2012.
[26]
D. L. Greenspan, M. Faubion, D. V. Coonrod, K. W. Hart, and K. Mathieson, “Compliance after loop electrosurgical excision procedure or cold knife cone biopsy,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 675–680, 2007.
[27]
M. J. Huchko, E. A. Bukusi, and C. R. Cohen, “Building capacity for cervical cancer screening in outpatient HIV clinics in the Nyanza province of western Kenya,” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 106–110, 2011.
[28]
L. O. Z. Sarian, S. F. M. Derchain, D. D. R. Pitta, S. S. Morais, and S. H. Rabelo-Santos, “Factors associated with HPV persistence after treatment for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia with large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ),” Journal of Clinical Virology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 270–274, 2004.
[29]
P. Suprasert, W. Panyaroj, and C. Kietpeerakool, “Recurrent rates with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia having a negative surgical margin after the loop electrosurgical excision procedure in Thailand,” Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 587–590, 2009.
[30]
K. Bodner, B. Bodner-Adler, F. Wierrani, O. Kimberger, C. Denk, and W. Grünberger, “Is therapeutic conization sufficient to eliminate a high-risk HPV infection of the uterine cervix? A clinicopathological analysis,” Anticancer Research, vol. 22, no. 6 B, pp. 3733–3736, 2002.
[31]
I. Alonso, A. Torné, L. M. Puig-Tintoré et al., “Pre- and post-conization high-risk HPV testing predicts residual/recurrent disease in patients treated for CIN 2-3,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 631–636, 2006.
[32]
N. U. Dogan, M. C. Salman, and K. Yuce, “The role of HPV DNA testing in the follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after loop electrosurgical excision procedure,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 283, no. 4, pp. 871–877, 2011.
[33]
N. H. Jeong, N. W. Lee, H. J. Kim, T. Kim, and K. W. Lee, “High-risk human papillomavirus testing for monitoring patients treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 706–711, 2009.
[34]
A. G. Bais, M. J. C. Eijkemans, M. Rebolj et al., “Post-treatment CIN: randomised clinical trial using hrHPV testing for prediction of residual/recurrent disease,” International Journal of Cancer, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 889–895, 2009.
[35]
M. Kocken, M. H. Uijterwaal, A. L. M. de Vries et al., “High-risk human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 500–507, 2012.
[36]
Y. Qiao, J. W. Sellors, P. S. Eder et al., “A new HPV-DNA test for cervical-cancer screening in developing regions: a cross-sectional study of clinical accuracy in rural China,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 929–936, 2008.
[37]
L. van Bogaert, “ immunocytochemistry/immunohistochemistry: need for scoring uniformization to be clinically useful in gynecological pathology,” Annals of Diagnostic Pathology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 422–428, 2012.
[38]
L. J. van Bogaert, “High-risk human papillomavirus screening and testing with immunohistochemical surrogate biomarkers: an alternative to polymerase chain reaction,” Southern African Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 30–33, 2012.
[39]
P. Lehtovirta, P. Finne, P. Nieminen et al., “Prevalence and risk factors of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix among HIV-infected women—a long-term follow-up study in a low-prevalence population,” International Journal of STD and AIDS, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 831–834, 2006.
