Lindsay M Kuroki1, Lauren M Bergeron, Feng Gao, Premal H Thaker, Leslie S Massad. 1. 1Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, Missouri; and 2Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine. St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report the overtreatment rate for see-and-treat versus 3-step conventional strategy (cervical cytology, colposcopic biopsies, then LEEP) for patients with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology. Our second aim was to identify risk factors for overtreatment. METHODS: We included 178 women with HSIL cytology from our university-based colposcopy clinic who underwent LEEP between 2007 and 2014. Overtreatment was defined as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 or less on LEEP specimen. Differences between treatment groups were compared using chi-square test, 2-sample t test, or Mann-Whitney rank-sum test as appropriate. RESULTS: CIN2+ was found in 69 (80%) of women in the see-and-treat group and 69 (75%) of the conventional management group (P = 0.093), with overtreatment in 17 (20%) and 23 (25%, P = 0.403), respectively. Women who underwent see-and-treat (n = 86) were older (mean age, 36 vs 31 years; P = 0.007), and a greater proportion completed childbearing (30% vs 13%, P = 0.024). There were no differences in top hat excision; however, a higher proportion of the see-and-treat group had CIN2+ in endocervical samples (54% vs 27%, P = 0.047). Overtreatment, regardless of management strategy, was associated with age at time of LEEP, where older women were more likely to be overtreated (median age, 37 vs 32 years, respectively; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: A see-and-treat strategy minimizes risk of loss to follow-up with a similar overtreatment rate compared with conventional management. With CIN2+ in some three-fourths of women with HSIL, a see-and-treat should be favored especially when adherence to follow-up is questionable.
OBJECTIVES: To report the overtreatment rate for see-and-treat versus 3-step conventional strategy (cervical cytology, colposcopic biopsies, then LEEP) for patients with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology. Our second aim was to identify risk factors for overtreatment. METHODS: We included 178 women with HSIL cytology from our university-based colposcopy clinic who underwent LEEP between 2007 and 2014. Overtreatment was defined as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 or less on LEEP specimen. Differences between treatment groups were compared using chi-square test, 2-sample t test, or Mann-Whitney rank-sum test as appropriate. RESULTS: CIN2+ was found in 69 (80%) of women in the see-and-treat group and 69 (75%) of the conventional management group (P = 0.093), with overtreatment in 17 (20%) and 23 (25%, P = 0.403), respectively. Women who underwent see-and-treat (n = 86) were older (mean age, 36 vs 31 years; P = 0.007), and a greater proportion completed childbearing (30% vs 13%, P = 0.024). There were no differences in top hat excision; however, a higher proportion of the see-and-treat group had CIN2+ in endocervical samples (54% vs 27%, P = 0.047). Overtreatment, regardless of management strategy, was associated with age at time of LEEP, where older women were more likely to be overtreated (median age, 37 vs 32 years, respectively; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: A see-and-treat strategy minimizes risk of loss to follow-up with a similar overtreatment rate compared with conventional management. With CIN2+ in some three-fourths of women with HSIL, a see-and-treat should be favored especially when adherence to follow-up is questionable.
Authors: L Stewart Massad; Mark H Einstein; Warner K Huh; Hormuzd A Katki; Walter K Kinney; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; Nicolas Wentzensen; Herschel W Lawson Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Paula R B Nogara; Luís A R Manfroni; Mariana C da Silva; Marcia E L Consolaro Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Cornelia L Trimble; Matthew P Morrow; Kimberly A Kraynyak; Xuefei Shen; Michael Dallas; Jian Yan; Lance Edwards; R Lamar Parker; Lynette Denny; Mary Giffear; Ami Shah Brown; Kathleen Marcozzi-Pierce; Divya Shah; Anna M Slager; Albert J Sylvester; Amir Khan; Kate E Broderick; Robert J Juba; Timothy A Herring; Jean Boyer; Jessica Lee; Niranjan Y Sardesai; David B Weiner; Mark L Bagarazzi Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lindsay M Kuroki; Laura James-Nywening; Ningying Wu; Jingxia Liu; Matthew A Powell; Premal H Thaker; L Stewart Massad Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 1.925