Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure in a Low-Resource Setting: Feasibility of Selective See-and-Treat Approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the correlation between cervical smear, colposcopic findings and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) histopathology and thereby assess the feasibility of performing LEEP bypassing cervical biopsy in selected cases.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent LEEP at our institution from 2014 to 2018. We traditionally follow a three-step approach for detection and treatment of pre-invasive lesions of cervix—(1) pap smear, (2) colposcopy of abnormal pap smear cases and directed biopsy, and (3) treatment of abnormal biopsies with LEEP. LEEP was performed for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2, CIN3, persistent CIN1 cases. Swede score ≥ 6 or major lesion on International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy (IFCPC) scoring on colposcopy was considered to be suggestive of high-grade lesion.

Results

Of the 123 patients who underwent LEEP, 80 patients had high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) on cervical smear and swede score ≥ 6 on colposcopy. Seventy-seven (96.3%) of these patients had high-grade lesion on final histopathology. Avoiding cervical biopsy and proceeding with LEEP in these patients would reduce an additional procedure in 77 patients with overtreatment of only 3 patients (2.4%). Overtreatment rate was 3.2% when IFCPC scoring was used instead of Swede score.

Conclusions

LEEP may be considered in patients with high-grade lesions on both colposcopy and cervical smear, bypassing cervical biopsy, thereby reducing the number of procedures performed. This reduces the financial burden for the individual and the healthcare facilities, also decreasing the anxiety and apprehension associated with multiple hospital visits and procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schlecht NF, Platt RW, Duarte-franco E, Costa MC, Sobrinho JP, Prado JC, et al. Human papillomavirus infection and time to progression and regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cox JT, Schiffman M, Solomon D. Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:1406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rema P, Suchetha S, Thara S, Fayette JM, Wesley R, Sankaranarayanan R. Effectiveness and safety of loop electrosurgical excision procedure in a low-resource setting. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;103:105–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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(9):1054–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bigrigg MA, Codling BW, Pearson P, Read MD, Swingler GR. Colposcopic diagnosis and treatment of cervical dysplasia at a single clinic visit. Experience of low-voltage diathermy loop in 1000 patients. Lancet. 1990;336(8709):229–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sorbye SW, Arbyn M, Fismen S, Gutteberg TJ, Mortensen ES. HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing is more specific than cytology in post-colposcopy follow-up of women with negative cervical biopsy. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e26022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026022.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Eduardo AM, Dinh TV, Hannigan EV, Yandell RB, Schnadig VJ. Outpatient loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: Can it replace cold knife conization? J Reprod Med. 1996;41:729–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Willan AR, Chan BK, Howell LP. Natural history of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:727–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Guducu N, Sidar G, Bassullu N, Turkmen I, Dunder I. Three-step approach versus see-and-treat approach in patients with cytological abnormalities. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2013;6:372–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Singla S, Mathur S, Kriplani A, Agarwal N, Garg P, Bhatla N. Single visit approach for management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia by visual inspection & loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Indian J Med Res. 2012;135:614–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ebisch RMF, Rovers MM, Bosgraaf RP, et al. Evidence supporting see-and-treat management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2016;123:59–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Irvin WP, Andersen WA, Taylor PT, Stoler MH, Rice LW. “See-and-treat” loop electrosurgical excision. Has the time come for a reassessment? J Reprod Med. 2002;47:569–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cho H, Kim JH. Treatment of the patients with abnormal cervical cytology: a “see-and-treat” versus three-step strategy. J Gynecol Oncol. 2009;20:164–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Aue-Aungkul A, Punyawatanasin S, Natprathan A, et al. “See and treat” approach is appropriate in women with high grade lesions on either cervical cytology or colposcopy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:1723–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bosgraaf RP, Peter-Paul M, Struik-van der Zanden PHTH, Bulten J, Massuger LFAG, Bekkers RLM. Overtreatment in a see-and-treat approach to cervical intraepithelial lesions. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(6):1209–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318293ab22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gynaecological Oncology, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India

    T. Vijayashanti, P. Rema, S. Suchetha, Aswathy G. Nath & Anila Tresa

  2. Department of Biostatistics, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India

    Jagathnath Krishna

Authors
  1. T. Vijayashanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Rema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Suchetha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aswathy G. Nath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anila Tresa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jagathnath Krishna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Rema.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vijayashanti, T., Rema, P., Suchetha, S. et al. Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure in a Low-Resource Setting: Feasibility of Selective See-and-Treat Approach. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 19, 26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-021-00497-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-021-00497-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation