Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2022
Comparison of the safety between cervical conization and hysterectomy for patients with cervical adenocarcinoma in situ.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Jingjing, Wang Yu, Wan Xiaoyun, Zou Jian, Zhu Yedan, Lv Weiguo, Shen Yuanming
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety between cervical conization (CC) alone and hysterectomy for patients with adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the cervix.
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with AIS after CC during 2007-2021 were identified by computerized databases at Women's Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine. A total of 453 AIS patients were divided into 2 groups according to uterus preservation: hysterectomy group (n=300) and CC(s) alone group (n=153). The prevalence of residual disease and disease recurrence was compared between patients treated by CC(s) alone and hysterectomy. The prevalence of residual disease in specimens from women who had a hysterectomy and repeat CC were compared between positive and negative margins of CC. The factors influencing residual disease and disease recurrence were assessed.
RESULTS: Among 310 specimens from women who had a hysterectomy or repeat CC, the prevalence of residual disease was 50.6% (45/89) for a positive margin and 2.3% (5/221) for a negative margin (p=0.000). Four patients had recurrence of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia in those treated by hysterectomy and one had recurrence of cervical squamous intraepithelial neoplasia in those treated by CC(s) alone. The prevalence of recurrence was 0.7% (1/153) for CC(s) alone and 1.3% (4/300) for hysterectomy (p=0.431). Hysterectomy did not influence residual disease or disease recurrence.
CONCLUSION: CC is an efficacious and safe option for patients with AIS of the cervix provided the margin is negative.
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with AIS after CC during 2007-2021 were identified by computerized databases at Women's Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine. A total of 453 AIS patients were divided into 2 groups according to uterus preservation: hysterectomy group (n=300) and CC(s) alone group (n=153). The prevalence of residual disease and disease recurrence was compared between patients treated by CC(s) alone and hysterectomy. The prevalence of residual disease in specimens from women who had a hysterectomy and repeat CC were compared between positive and negative margins of CC. The factors influencing residual disease and disease recurrence were assessed.
RESULTS: Among 310 specimens from women who had a hysterectomy or repeat CC, the prevalence of residual disease was 50.6% (45/89) for a positive margin and 2.3% (5/221) for a negative margin (p=0.000). Four patients had recurrence of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia in those treated by hysterectomy and one had recurrence of cervical squamous intraepithelial neoplasia in those treated by CC(s) alone. The prevalence of recurrence was 0.7% (1/153) for CC(s) alone and 1.3% (4/300) for hysterectomy (p=0.431). Hysterectomy did not influence residual disease or disease recurrence.
CONCLUSION: CC is an efficacious and safe option for patients with AIS of the cervix provided the margin is negative.