| Literature DB >> 36253767 |
Maria Teresa Bruno1,2, Nazario Cassaro3,4, Gabriele Mazza5, Arianna Guaita6, Sara Boemi3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is broad consensus that only a subset of CIN3 will progress to cancer, there is currently no surefire way to predict which CIN3 will regress. Understanding the natural history of CIN3 is important, and finding markers for progression or regression could improve treatment strategies. According to the guidelines of the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology of 2006, positive CIN3 p16 in women should be managed with excisional treatment (LEEP). For ethical reasons we cannot fail to treat women with CIN3 in order to study their regression capacity so we conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the regression rate of CIN3 diagnosed with a biopsy by studying the histological result of the cone removed by LEEP. We also investigated age, HPV genotypes and biopsy-cone interval distance as possible regression factors.Entities:
Keywords: Biopsy; CIN3 regression; HPV genotype; LEEP
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36253767 PMCID: PMC9578209 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10179-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.638
Fig. 1Flow chart of women enrolled in the study
Number of women for week with persistence /regression in the study group
| WEEKS | n° | Persistence | Regression |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| 3 | 24 | 24 | 0 |
| 4 | 68 | 62 | 6 |
| 5 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| 6 | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 8 | 14 | 12 | 2 |
| 9 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| 10 | 10 | 6 | 4 |
| 11 | 10 | 7 | 3 |
| 12 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
| 16 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 36 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Shows the estimates of the coefficients of the logistic model applied to the probability of spontaneous regression of CIN3 as a function of the patient’s age, the time elapsed between the biopsy and the cone (in weeks) and the HPV genotype, only the dependence on the variable “weeks” is significant
| Variable | Estimation of the odds ratio | 95% confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weeks | 1.46 | (1.28; 1.71) | 3.38* |
| Age | 0.92 | (0.81; 1.02) | 0.125 |
| HPV_genotype | 2.66 | (0.79; 8.66) | 0.104 |
Show the logistic model again with the variable “weeks”, considering only 2 age classes, under 25 years (including 25) and over 25 years
| Variable | Estimation of the odds ratio | 95% confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weeks | 1.63 | (1.38; 2.04) | 6.74* |
| Age (25 +) | 0.0045 | (0.00020; 0.036) | 1.05* |
Show that the greatest difference between the odds ratio was obtained considering the cut-off at 11 weeks
| Variable | Estimation of the odds ratio | 95% confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weeks 10 | 10. 05 | (3.76; 26.95) | 1,38 |
| Weeks (11 +) | 22.26 | (6.06; 107.21) | 1.24* |