Factors That Influence Surgical Margin State in Patients Undergoing Cold Knife Conization – A Single Center Experience

1. Horner MJ, Ries LA, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2006. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csp/1975_2006.Search in Google Scholar

2. Crane JM. Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:1058-62.10.1097/00006250-200311000-00031Search in Google Scholar

3. Kainz C, Gitsch G, Heinzl Hm Breitenecker G. Incidence of cervical smears indicating dysplasia among Austrian women durign the 1980s. Br. J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:541-4.10.1111/j.1471-0528.1995.tb11357.xSearch in Google Scholar

4. Ting J, Kruzikas DT, Smith JS. A global review of age-specific and overall prevalence of cervical lesions. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2010;20:1244–9.10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181f16c5fOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

5. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;121(4):829-46.10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182883a34Search in Google Scholar

6. Kyrgiou M, Kaliopoulos G, Martin – Hirsch P. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta–analysis. Lancet 2006;367:489–98.10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68181-6Search in Google Scholar

7. Ghaem-Maghami S, Sagi S, Majeed G, Soutter WP. Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(11):985–93.10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70283-8Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

8. Oliveira CA, Russomano FB, Gomes Júnior SC, Corrêa FM. Risk of persistent high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion after electrosurgical excisional treatment with positive margins: a meta-analysis. Sao Paulo Med J 2012;130:119-25.10.1590/S1516-31802012000200009Search in Google Scholar

9. Lu CH, Liu FS, Kuo CJ, Chang CC, Ho ES. Prediction of persistence or recurrence after conization forcervical intraepithelial neoplasia III. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:830-5.10.1097/01.AOG.0000206777.28541.fc16582119Search in Google Scholar

10. Tillmanns TD, Falkner CA, Engle DB, Wan JY, Mannel RS, Walker JL, et al. Preoperative predictors of positive margins after loop electrosurgical excisional procedure-Cone. Gynecol Oncol 2006;100:379-84.10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.09.01516321430Search in Google Scholar

11. Paraskevaidis E, Lolis ED, Koliopoulos G, Alamanos Y, Fotiou S, Kitchener HC. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after large loop excision with clear margins. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:828-31.10.1016/S0029-7844(00)00791-2Search in Google Scholar

12. Kietpeerakool C, Khunamornpong S, Srisomboon J, Siriaunkgul S, Suprasert P. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II-III with endocervical cone margin involvement after cervical loop conization: is there any predictor for residual disease? J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2007;33:660-4.10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00628.x17845326Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

13. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(12):2893-917.10.1002/ijc.2551621351269Search in Google Scholar

14. Herbert A, Smith JA. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III (CIN III) and invasive cervical carcinoma: the yawning gap revisited and the treatment of risk. Cytopathology 1999; 10:161-70.10.1046/j.1365-2303.1999.00169.x10390064Search in Google Scholar

15. Narducci F, Occelli B, Boman F, Vinatier D, Leroy JL. Positive margins after conization and risk of persistent lesion. Gynecologic Oncology 2000;76:311–4.10.1006/gyno.1999.569710684702Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

16. Mohamed-Noor K, Quinn MA, Tan J. Outcomes after cervical cold knife conization with complete and incomplete excision of abnormal epithelium: a review of 699 cases. Gynecologic Oncology 1997;67:34–8.10.1006/gyno.1997.48179345353Search in Google Scholar

17. Jakus S, Edmonds P, Dunton C, King SA. Margin status and excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a review. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 2000;55:520–7.10.1097/00006254-200008000-0002510945195Search in Google Scholar

18. Leguevaque P, Motton S, Decharme A, Soule-Tholy M, Escourrou G, Hoff J. Predictors of recurrence in high-grade cervical lesions and a plan of management. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2010;36:1073–9.10.1016/j.ejso.2010.08.13520870375Search in Google Scholar

19. Baloglu A, Uysal D, Bezircioglu I, Bicer M, Inci A. Residual and recurrent disease rates following LEEP treatment in high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2010;282:69–73.10.1007/s00404-009-1298-319940997Search in Google Scholar

20. Chen Y, Lu H, Wan X, Lv W, Xie X. Factors associated with positive margins in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and postconization management. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009;107:107–10.10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.05.02719628208Search in Google Scholar

21. Chang D-Y, Cheng W-F, Torng P-L, Chen R-J, Huang S-C. Prediction of residual neoplasia based on histopathology and margin status of conization specimens. Gynecol Oncol. 1996;63:53–6.10.1006/gyno.1996.02778898168Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

22. Kliemann LM, Silva M, Reinheimer M, Rivoire WA, Capp E, Dos Reis R. Minimal cold knife conization height for high-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesion treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012; 165: 342-6.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.08.01622948133Search in Google Scholar

23. Papoutsis D, Rodolakis A, Mesogitis S, Sotiropoulou M, Antsaklis A. Appropriate cone dimensions to achieve negative excision margins after large loop excision of transformation zone in the uterine cervix for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013; 75: 163-8.10.1159/00034586423296191Search in Google Scholar

24. Milinovic D, Kalafatic D, Babic D, Oreskovic LB, Grsic HL, Oreskovic S. Minimally invasive therapy ofcervical intraepithelial neoplasia for fertility preservation. Pathol Oncol Res 2009;15:521-5.10.1007/s12253-009-9148-ySearch in Google Scholar

25. Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Ritter J, Meyer P, Philippe E. Risk of cervical stenosis after large loop excision or laser conization. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88: 933-8. [Crossref]10.1016/S0029-7844(96)00331-6Search in Google Scholar

26. Girardi F, Heydarfadai M, Koroschetz F, Pickel H, Winter R. Cold-knife conization versus loop excision: histopathologic and clinical results of a randomized trial. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 55: 368-70. [Crossref]10.1006/gyno.1994.13087835776Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

27. Andia D, Mozo de Rosales F, Villasante A, Rivero B, Diez J, Perez C. Pregnancy outcome in patients treated with cervical conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 112: 225-8. [Crossref]10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.10.01521247572Search in Google Scholar