Advertisement

Management of High-Grade Lesions

  • Neha Gami
  • Kanika Gupta
Chapter

Abstract

High-grade lesions of the cervix are an important subgroup of lesions as they have a high probability of progressing to cervical neoplasia. They include CIN 2 and CIN 3 lesions on histopathology. Accurate diagnosis, exclusion of invasive carcinoma, and appropriate management are crucial to prevent progression to cancer. HSIL on cytology needs colposcopic evaluation and appropriate biopsy. Once the diagnosis is confirmed by histopathology, the treatment may be done by excisional or ablative methods. Counseling and proper follow-up of patients who have been managed for CIN 2 or 3 is a very important aspect of the management.

References

  1. 1.
    Lindeque B. Management of cervical premalignant lesions. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;19(4):545–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katki H, Schiffman M, Castle P, Fetterman B, Poitras N, Lorey T, et al. Five-year risks of CIN 3+ and cervical cancer among women with HPV-positive and HPV-negative high-grade pap results. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17:S50–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Medicine U. Abnormal Pap Smear. UW Medicine [Internet]. Uwmedicine.org. 2018. http://www.uwmedicine.org/health-library/pages/abnormal-pap-smear.aspx. Cited 17 Feb 2018.
  4. 4.
    Massad L, Einstein M, Huh W, Katki H, Kinney W, Schiffman M, et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):829–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Massad L, Collins Y, Meyer P. Biopsy correlates of abnormal cervical cytology classified using the Bethesda system. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;82(3):516–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sellors J, Sankaranarayanan R. Colposcopia e tratamento da neoplasia intra-epitelial cervical. Lyon: Centro Internacional de Pesquisas sobre o Câncer; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petry K. Management options for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;25(5):641–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunn T, Killoran K, Wolf D. Complications of outpatient LLETZ procedures. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004;59(6):431–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suh-Burgmann E. Risk factors for cervical stenosis after loop electrocautery excision procedure. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(5):657–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Santesso N, Mustafa R, Wiercioch W, Kehar R, Gandhi S, Chen Y, et al. 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. 2015;132(3):266–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, Raifu A, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;337:a1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    CRANE J. Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(5):1058–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sadler L. Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA. 2004;291(17):2100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Panoskaltsis T, Ind TE, Perryman K, Dina R, Abrahams Y, Soutter WP. Needleversus loop diathermy excision of the transformation zone for the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2004;111(7):748–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Camargo MJ, Russomano FB, Tristão MA, Huf G, Prendiville W. Large loop versus straight-wire excision of the transformation zone for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial of electrosurgical techniques. BJOG. 2015;122(4):552–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russomano F, Tristao MA, Côrtes R, de Camargo MJ. A comparison between type 3 excision of the transformation zone by straight wire excision of the transformation zone (SWETZ) and large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ): a randomized study. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Santesso N, Mustafa RA, Wiercioch W, Kehar R, Gandhi S, Chen Y, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of benefits and harms of cryotherapy, LEEP, and cold knife conization to treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;132(3):266–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mathevet P, Dargent D, Roy M, Beau G. A randomized prospective study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;54(2):175–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mathevet P, Chemali E, Roy M, Dargent D. Long-term outcome of a randomized study comparing three techniques of conization: cold knife, laser, and LEEP. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;106(2):214–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    di Saia P, Morrow C, Townsend D. Synopsis of gynecologic oncology. New York: Wiley; 1975.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    World Health Organization. WHO guidelines. Guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention. 2013. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/94830/9789241548694_eng.pdf;jsessionid=8E43D2FBAEAE4BDE3C2D1CD1B1E4641C?sequence=1. Accessed 24 Mar 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neha Gami
    • 1
  • Kanika Gupta
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyHealthplus Clinic and Danat al Emarat HospitalAbu DhabiUAE
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedcare Multispeciality HospitalSharjahUAE

Personalised recommendations