Positive Endocervical Margins at Conization: Repeat Conization or Colposcopic Follow-Up? A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Background: The presence of residual cervical lesions was evaluated in patients submitted to repeat conization due to a finding of positive endocervical margins in a previous loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) specimen. In addition, the correlation between the presence of a residual lesion and risk factors for cervical cancer, and the use of repeat conization as first-choice treatment were analyzed.

Methods: This retrospective study included 44 patients submitted to repeat cervical conization or total hysterectomy following a finding of affected endocervical margins in LEEP specimens. The risk factors analyzed in relation to the presence of residual lesions were age, smoking, cone depth, glandular involvement and the histopathology findings of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1, CIN 2 or CIN 3/carcinoma in situ. The Chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney t-test were used, with significance defined at P < 0.05.

Results: Residual lesions were found in 23/44 patients (52.3%), with 3/23 cases (13.0%) being compatible with invasive squamous cell carcinoma. Of the 23 patients, six (26.1%) were submitted to total hysterectomy, with one case being compatible with a moderately differentiated invasive squamous cell carcinoma. Two patients with a histopathology finding of CIN 3/carcinoma in situ in the previous LEEP specimen were diagnosed with invasive squamous cell carcinoma in the repeat conization specimen. Residual lesions were not significantly associated with the risk factors evaluated.

Conclusions: In view of the high frequency of residual disease found when positive endocervical margins were found in LEEP specimens, the indication for repeat cervical conization rather than colposcopic follow-up is viable and justified. Indeed, since the presence of a residual lesion and its progression in the cervical canal are more difficult to screen and control, patients unable to comply with regular colposcopic follow-up could benefit from repeat conization when trying to avoid a potentially negative outcome.




J Clin Med Res. 2015;7(7):540-544
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jocmr2171w