Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 4, pp 805–812 | Cite as

Residual lesions in uterine specimens after loop electrosurgical excision procedure in patients with CIN

  • Lin Jing
  • Wu DanEmail author
  • Li Zhunan
  • Xu Ying
  • Chen Yi
Gynecologic Oncology



To identify the risk factors for residual lesion in hysterectomy specimens after loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).

Methods and results

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 594 patients who underwent total hysterectomy after LEEP for CIN at the International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University between July 2006 and June 2015. Among the 594 patients, there were no residual lesions in uterine specimens of 409 (68.9%) patients; residual CIN1 was found in 24 (4%) patients, CIN2 and CIN3 in 142 (23.9%) patients, and cervical cancer in 19 (3.2%) patients. On univariate analysis age, menopausal status, margin involvement, lesion grade, abnormal endocervical curettage (ECC) result, and persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection post operation were significantly associated with residual lesions after LEEP (P < 0.05). Multivariate regression analysis using the logistic regression model showed abnormal ECC result and persistent HPV positivity to be independent risk factors for residual lesions after LEEP. LEEP with positive margins and persistent HPV infection were also associated with high risk of invasive cervical cancer in CIN2+ patients.


Abnormal ECC result and post-treatment HPV infection are predictors of residual lesion after LEEP. In combination, they could be useful for risk stratification and selection of the management approach. Postmenopausal CIN2+ patients with positive margins and persistent postoperative HPV infection may have high risk of cervical invasive cancer.


Cervical loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) Conization Hysterectomy Colposcopy Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia Margin involvement 



Atypical glandular cells


Atypical glandular cells—favor neoplasia


Adenocarcinoma in situ


American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology


Atypical squamous cells—cannot exclude high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesion


Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia


Endocervical curettage


Human papillomavirus


High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion


Liquid-based cytology test


Loop electrosurgical excision procedure


Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion


Vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia


Author contributions

Wu Dan put forward the concept and idea;Lin Jing designed the experiment;Experiments were completed by Xu Ying and Chen Yi, Li Zhunan is responsible for detection;Lin Jing and Chen Yi summarized the data and conducted a statistical analysis;The essay was written by Lin Jing;Wu Dan proposed constructive amendments to the essay.


This study was funded by the Shanghai Shen Kang Hospital Development Center’s “Comprehensive prevention and control project of chronic disease in municipal hospitals”, 2015, Shanghai, China. [Grant number SHDC 12015312].

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical disclosures

This study was approved by the institutional Ethics Committee of International Peace Maternal and Child Health Hospital. The date of approval is 2/8/2016 and the reference number is (GKLW) 2015–28. All study participants gave written informed consent.


  1. 1.
    Park JY, Lee SM, Yoo CW, Kang S, Park SY, Seo SS (2007) Risk factors predicting residual disease in subsequent hysterctomy following conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) III and microinvasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 107(1):39–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ghaem-Maghami S, Sagi S, Majeed G, Soutter WP (2007) Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 8:985–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghaem-Maghami S, De-Silva D, Tipples M et al (2011) Determinants of success in treating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG 118:679–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, Katki HA, Kinney WK, Schiffman M et al (2013) 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol 121(4):829–846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pp DSM, Duarte G, Quintana SM (2016) Multivariate analysis of risk factors for the persistence of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions following loop electrosurgical excision procedure.[J]. Int J Gynecol Obstet 133(2):234–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lubrano A, Medina N, Benito V, Arencibia O, Falcón JM, Leon L et al (2012) Follow-up after lletz: a study of 682 cases of cin 2-cin 3 in a single institution. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 161:71–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamontri S, Israngura N, Rochanawutanon M, Bullangpoti S, Tangtrakul S (2010) Predictive factors for residual disease in the uterine cervix afterlarge loop excision of the transformation zone in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III. J Med Assoc Thai 93(Suppl 2):S74–S80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tan XJ, Wu M, Lang JH, Ma SQ, Shen K (2009) Predictors of residual lesion in cervix after conization in patientswith cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and microinvasive cervical cancer. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 89(1):17–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Santesso N, Mustafa RA, Wiercioch W, Kehar R, Gandhi S, Chen Y et al (2016) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of benefits and harms of cryotherapy, leep, and cold knife conization to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Gynecol Obstet 132(3):266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cui Y, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Patsner B et al (2017) Prognostic value of endocervical sampling following loop excision of high grade intraepithelial neoplasia[J]. Gynecol Oncol 144(3):547–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A et al (2012) Evidence regarding HPV testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine 30(suppl 5):F88–F99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramchandani SM, Houck KL, Hernandez E, Gaughan JP (2007) Predicting persistent/recurrent disease in the cervix after excisional biopsy (J). Med Gen Med 9(2):24Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu CH, Liu FS, Tseng JJ, Ho ES (2000) Predictive factors for residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy following conization for CIN III.[J]. Gynecol Oncol 79(2):284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moore BC, Higgins RV, Laurent SL, Marroum MC, Bellitt P (1995) Predictive factors from cold knife conization for residual cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in subsequent hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 173(2):361–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campaner AB, Cardoso FA (2011) Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in conization does not require immediate excisional procedure[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284(2):517–519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arbyn M, Redman C, Verdoodt F et al (2017) Incomplete excision of cervical precancer as a predictor of treatment failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.[J]. Lancet Oncol 18:1665–1679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ghaem-Maghami S, Sagi S, Majeed G, Soutter WP (2007) Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 8:985–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH et al (2009) Human papillomavirus test after conization in predicting residual disease in subsequent hysterectomy specimens. Obstet Gynecol 114:87–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kietpeerakool C, Khunamornpong S, Srisomboon J, Siriaunkgul S, Suprasert P (2007) Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia ii–iii with endocervical cone margin involvement after cervical loop conization: is there any predictor for residual disease? J Obstet Gynaecol Res 33(5):660–664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cardozafavarato G, Fadare O (2007) High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (CIN 2 and 3) excised with negative margins by loop electrosurgical excision procedure: the significance of CIN 1 at the margins of excision.[J]. Hum Pathol 38(5):781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Güdücü N, Sidar G, Başsüllü N, Türkmen I, Dünder I (2013) Endocervical glandular involvement, multicentricity, and extent of the disease are features of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia(J). Ann Diagn Pathol 17(4):345–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Costa S, De NM, Infante FE, Bonavita B, Marinelli M, Rubino A et al (2002) Disease persistence in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia undergoing electrosurgical conization. Gynecol Oncol 85(1):119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kong TW, Son JH, Chang SJ, Paek J, Lee Y, Ryu HS (2014) Value of endocervical margin and high-risk human papillomavirus status after conization for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ, and microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix[J]. Gynecol Oncol 135(3):468–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lima MI, Tafuri A, Araújo AC, Lima LDM, Melo VH (2009) Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia recurrence after conization in HIV-positive and HIV-negaive women (J). Int J Gynecol Obstet 104(2):100–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leguevaque P, Motton S, Decharme A, Soulé-Tholy M, Escourrou G, Hoff J (2010) Predictors of recurrence in high-grade cervical lesions and a plan of management[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol 36(11):1073–1079CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vintermyr OK, Iversen O, Thoresen S, Quint W, Molijn A, Souza SD (2014) Recurrent high- grade cervical lesion after primary conization is associated with persistent human papillomavirus infection in Norway. Gynecol Oncol 133:159–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coser J, Boeira TD, Wolf JM, Cerbaro K, Simon D, Lunge VR (2016) Cervical human papillomavirus infection and persistence: a clinic-based study in the countryside from South Brazil. [J]. Brazilian J Infect Dis 20:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim Y, Lee JM, Hur S, Cho C, Kim YT, Kim SC et al (2010) Clearance of human papillomavirus infection after successful conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 126(8):1903CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gallwas J, Ditsch N, Hillemanns P, Friese K, Thaler C, Dannecker C (2010) The significance of hpv in the follow-up period after treatment for cin. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 31(1):27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Serati M, Siesto G, Carollo S, Formenti G, Riva C, Cromi A et al (2012) Risk factors for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia recurrence after conization: a 10-year study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 165(1):86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cervical Disease, The International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital, School of MedicineShanghai Jiaotong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations