BACKGROUND: Conservative methods to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and microinvasive cervical cancer are commonly used in young women because of the advent of effective screening programmes. In a meta-analysis, we investigated the effect of these procedures on subsequent fertility and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: We searched for studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE and classified them by the conservative method used and the outcome measure studied regarding both fertility and pregnancy. Pooled relative risks and 95% CIs were calculated with a random-effects model and interstudy heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane's Q test. FINDINGS: We identified 27 studies. Cold knife conisation was significantly associated with preterm delivery (<37 weeks; relative risk 2.59, 95% CI 1.80-3.72, 100/704 [14%] vs 1494/27 674 [5%]), low birthweight (<2500 g; 2.53, 1.19-5.36, 32/261 [12%] vs 905/13 229 [7%]), and caesarean section (3.17, 1.07-9.40, 31/350 [9%] vs 22/670 [3%]). Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was also significantly associated with preterm delivery (1.70, 1.24-2.35, 156/1402 [11%] vs 120/1739 [7%]), low birthweight (1.82, 1.09-3.06, 77/996 [8%] vs 49/1192 [4%]), and premature rupture of the membranes (2.69, 1.62-4.46, 48/905 [5%] vs 22/1038 [2%]). Similar but marginally non-significant adverse effects were recorded for laser conisation (preterm delivery 1.71, 0.93-3.14). We did not detect significantly increased risks for obstetric outcomes after laser ablation. Although severe outcomes such as admission to a neonatal intensive care unit or perinatal mortality showed adverse trends, these changes were not significant. INTERPRETATION: All the excisional procedures to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia present similar pregnancy-related morbidity without apparent neonatal morbidity. Caution in the treatment of young women with mild cervical abnormalities should be recommended. Clinicians now have the evidence base to counsel women appropriately.
BACKGROUND: Conservative methods to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and microinvasive cervical cancer are commonly used in young women because of the advent of effective screening programmes. In a meta-analysis, we investigated the effect of these procedures on subsequent fertility and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: We searched for studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE and classified them by the conservative method used and the outcome measure studied regarding both fertility and pregnancy. Pooled relative risks and 95% CIs were calculated with a random-effects model and interstudy heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane's Q test. FINDINGS: We identified 27 studies. Cold knife conisation was significantly associated with preterm delivery (<37 weeks; relative risk 2.59, 95% CI 1.80-3.72, 100/704 [14%] vs 1494/27 674 [5%]), low birthweight (<2500 g; 2.53, 1.19-5.36, 32/261 [12%] vs 905/13 229 [7%]), and caesarean section (3.17, 1.07-9.40, 31/350 [9%] vs 22/670 [3%]). Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was also significantly associated with preterm delivery (1.70, 1.24-2.35, 156/1402 [11%] vs 120/1739 [7%]), low birthweight (1.82, 1.09-3.06, 77/996 [8%] vs 49/1192 [4%]), and premature rupture of the membranes (2.69, 1.62-4.46, 48/905 [5%] vs 22/1038 [2%]). Similar but marginally non-significant adverse effects were recorded for laser conisation (preterm delivery 1.71, 0.93-3.14). We did not detect significantly increased risks for obstetric outcomes after laser ablation. Although severe outcomes such as admission to a neonatal intensive care unit or perinatal mortality showed adverse trends, these changes were not significant. INTERPRETATION: All the excisional procedures to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia present similar pregnancy-related morbidity without apparent neonatal morbidity. Caution in the treatment of young women with mild cervical abnormalities should be recommended. Clinicians now have the evidence base to counsel women appropriately.
Authors: Daryl L Wieland; Laura L Reimers; Eijean Wu; Lisa M Nathan; Tammy Gruenberg; Maria Abadi; Mark H Einstein Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: E Vaisbuch; R Romero; O Erez; J P Kusanovic; S Mazaki-Tovi; F Gotsch; V Romero; C Ward; T Chaiworapongsa; P Mittal; Y Sorokin; S S Hassan Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Sholom Wacholder; Walter Kinney; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lucia Rössler; Olaf Reich; Reinhard Horvat; Sabrina Collas de Souza; Katsyarina Holl; Elmar A Joura Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 1.704