Aims: To determine appropriate cone dimensions for predicting margin status after large loop excision of transformation zone (LLETZ) treatment. Methods: An observational study performed at the Colposcopy Unit of a university hospital setting involving patients who underwent LLETZ conisation within a 1-year period. Data concerning the characteristics, cone dimensions, lesion grade and excision margins of the patients were recorded. Results: The median age of the women (n = 61) was 38 years (18-53). LLETZ cone specimens had 36.1% of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2/3 lesion and 13.1% positive margins. Mean cone depth and volume were 10.9 mm and 2.3 cm3, respectively. Multiple logistic regression for main predictors and after adjustment for age, parity and CIN severity showed that cone volume and length, cone base surface and proportion of excised volume had a significant effect on margin positivity. ROC analysis showed that optimal cut-off for cone volume was 2.1 cm3 (87.5% sensitivity - 54.7% specificity) or 8.6% of initial cervical volume (75% sensitivity - 75.5% specificity), and for cone length it was 10 mm (100% sensitivity - 52.8% specificity). Optimal cut-off for cone base surface as percentage of ectocervical surface was 32.7% (75% sensitivity - 69.8% specificity). Conclusions: These findings should be taken into consideration when planning the outer boundaries of excision and cervical tissue to be removed so as to achieve oncologically safe limits.

Keywords:
Large loop excision of transformation zone conisation, Cone volume, Conisation depth
1.
Kitchener HC, Cruickshank ME, Farmery E: The 1993 British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology/National Coordinating Network United Kingdom Colposcopy Survey. Comparison with 1988 and the response to introduction of guidelines. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:549-552.
2.
Prendiville W, Cullimore J, Norman S: Large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ). A new method of management for women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:1054-1060.
3.
Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al: Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006;367:489-498.
4.
Raine-Fenning NJ, Clewes J, Kendall NR, et al: The interobserver reliability and validity of volume calculation from three-dimensional ultrasound datasets in the in vitro setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;21:283-291.
5.
Rubio CA, Thomassen P, Soderberg G, et al: Big cones and little cones. Histopathology 1978;2:133-143.
6.
Papoutsis D, Rodolakis A, Antonakou A, et al: Cervical cone measurements and residual disease in LLETZ conisation for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. In Vivo 2011;25:691-696.
7.
Riccabona M, Nelson TR, Pretorius DH: Three-dimensional ultrasound: accuracy of distance and volume measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;7:429-434.
8.
Ghaem-Maghami S, Sagi S, Majeed G, Soutter WP: Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:985-993.
9.
Cho HY, Kim YB, Hong No J, et al: Endocervical margin involvement as an important risk factor for abnormal cytology after LLETZ. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2012;31:377-381.
10.
Ang C, Mukhopadhyay A, Burnley C, et al: Histological recurrence and depth of loop treatment of the cervix in women of reproductive age: incomplete excision versus adverse pregnancy outcome. BJOG 2011;118:685-692.
11.
Anderson MC, Hartley RB: Cervical crypt involvement by intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol 1980;55:546-550.
12.
Department of Health: Colposcopy and Programme Management. Guidelines for the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. NHSCSP Publication No. 20. Sheffield, NHSCSP, 2010.
13.
Jordan J, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, et al: European guidelines for clinical management of abnormal cervical cytology. Part 2. Cytopathology 2009;20:5-16.
14.
Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, et al: Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ 2008;337:1284-1295.
15.
Leiman G, Harrison NA, Rubin A: Pregnancy following conization of the cervix: complications related to cone size. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;136:14-18.
16.
Noehr B, Jensen A, Frederiksen K, et al: Depth of cervical cone removed by loop electrosurgical excision procedure and subsequent risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1232-1238.
17.
Founta C, Arbyn M, Valasoulis G, et al: Proportion of excision and cervical healing after large loop excision of the transformation zone for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG 2010;117:1468-1474.
18.
Papoutsis D, Rodolakis A, Mesogitis S, et al: Regeneration of uterine cervix at 6 months after large loop excision of the transformation zone for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG 2012;119:678-684.
19.
Boonlikit S, Yanaranop M: Thermal artifact after three techniques of loop excision of the transformation zone: a comparative study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2012;73:230-235.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.