F Bruinsma1, J Lumley, J Tan, M Quinn. 1. Mother and Child Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Carlton, Victoria, Australia. f.bruinsma@latrobe.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were (i) to examine whether women referred for assessment of precancerous changes in the cervix had higher rates of preterm birth compared with those in the general population and (ii) to compare preterm birth rates for treated and untreated women adjusting for possible confounding factors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort design. SETTING: Teaching hospital. POPULATION: All women referred to the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne (1982-2000), who subsequently had a birth recorded on the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection system (n = 5548). METHODS: Record linkage of hospital dysplasia clinic records and population-based birth records. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total preterm delivery (<37 weeks of gestation) and subtypes. RESULTS: Both treated and untreated women were at a significantly increased risk for preterm birth compared with those in the general population: treated--standardised prevalence ratio (SPR) 2.0, 95% CI 1.8-2.3 and untreated--SPR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4-1.7. Within the cohort, the treated women were significantly more likely to give birth preterm (adjusted OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.51). An increased risk of preterm birth was also associated with a history of induced or spontaneous abortions, illicit drug use during pregnancy or a major maternal medical condition. Cone biopsy, loop electrosurgical excision procedure and diathermy were associated with preterm birth. After adjusting for possible confounding factors, only diathermy remained significant (adjusted OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.36-2.17). Women treated using laser ablation were not at an increased risk for preterm birth (adjusted OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8-1.4). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of precancerous changes in the cervix (regardless of the treatment) was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. Consideration should be given to the preferential use of ablative treatments.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were (i) to examine whether women referred for assessment of precancerous changes in the cervix had higher rates of preterm birth compared with those in the general population and (ii) to compare preterm birth rates for treated and untreated women adjusting for possible confounding factors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort design. SETTING: Teaching hospital. POPULATION: All women referred to the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne (1982-2000), who subsequently had a birth recorded on the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection system (n = 5548). METHODS: Record linkage of hospital dysplasia clinic records and population-based birth records. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total preterm delivery (<37 weeks of gestation) and subtypes. RESULTS: Both treated and untreated women were at a significantly increased risk for preterm birth compared with those in the general population: treated--standardised prevalence ratio (SPR) 2.0, 95% CI 1.8-2.3 and untreated--SPR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4-1.7. Within the cohort, the treated women were significantly more likely to give birth preterm (adjusted OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.51). An increased risk of preterm birth was also associated with a history of induced or spontaneous abortions, illicit drug use during pregnancy or a major maternal medical condition. Cone biopsy, loop electrosurgical excision procedure and diathermy were associated with preterm birth. After adjusting for possible confounding factors, only diathermy remained significant (adjusted OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.36-2.17). Women treated using laser ablation were not at an increased risk for preterm birth (adjusted OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8-1.4). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of precancerous changes in the cervix (regardless of the treatment) was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. Consideration should be given to the preferential use of ablative treatments.
Authors: Joy Melnikow; Colleen McGahan; George F Sawaya; Thomas Ehlen; Andrew Coldman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Peter L Stern; Sjoerd H van der Burg; Ian N Hampson; Thomas R Broker; Alison Fiander; Charles J Lacey; Henry C Kitchener; Mark H Einstein Journal: Vaccine Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Sarah M Flanagan; Sue Wilson; David Luesley; Sarah L Damery; Sheila M Greenfield Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Maria Kyrgiou; Anita Mitra; Marc Arbyn; Sofia Melina Stasinou; Pierre Martin-Hirsch; Phillip Bennett; Evangelos Paraskevaidis Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-10-28
Authors: Diane E Halliwell; Maria Kyrgiou; Anita Mitra; Ilkka Kalliala; Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Georgios Theophilou; Pierre L Martin-Hirsch; Francis L Martin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Maria Kyrgiou; Anita Mitra; Marc Arbyn; Maria Paraskevaidi; Antonios Athanasiou; Pierre P L Martin-Hirsch; Phillip Bennett; Evangelos Paraskevaidis Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-09-29
Authors: Maria Kyrgiou; Antonios Athanasiou; Maria Paraskevaidi; Anita Mitra; Ilkka Kalliala; Pierre Martin-Hirsch; Marc Arbyn; Phillip Bennett; Evangelos Paraskevaidis Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-07-28