Fertility and early pregnancy outcomes after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of cervical excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia on fertility and early pregnancy outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline and Embase. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies assessing fertility and early pregnancy outcomes in women with a history of treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia versus untreated women. We classified the included studies according to treatment type and fertility or early pregnancy endpoint. ANALYSIS: Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals using a random effect model, and interstudy heterogeneity with I(2) statistics. RESULTS: 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included. The meta-analysis did not provide any evidence that treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia adversely affected the chances of conception. The overall pregnancy rate was higher for treated women than for untreated women (four studies; 43% v 38%, pooled relative risk 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.64), although the heterogeneity between studies was high (P<0.0001). Pregnancy rates did not differ between women with an intention to conceive (two studies; 88% v 95%, 0.93, 0.80 to 1.08) and the number requiring more than 12 months to conceive (three studies, 15% v 9%, 1.45, 0.89 to 2.37). Although the rates for total miscarriages (10 studies; 4.6% v 2.8%, 1.04, 0.90 to 1.21) and miscarriage in the first trimester (four studies; 9.8% v 8.4%, 1.16, 0.80 to 1.69) was similar for treated and untreated women, cervical treatment was associated with a significantly increased risk of miscarriage in the second trimester. The rate was higher for treated women than for untreated women (eight studies; 1.6% v 0.4%, 16,558 women; 2.60, 1.45 to 4.67). The number of ectopic pregnancies (1.6% v 0.8%; 1.89, 1.50 to 2.39) and terminations (12.2% v 7.4%; 1.71, 1.31 to 2.22) was also higher for treated women. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence suggesting that treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia adversely affects fertility, although treatment was associated with a significantly increased risk of miscarriages in the second trimester. Research should explore mechanisms that may explain this increase in risk and stratify the impact that treatment may have on fertility and early pregnancy outcomes by the size of excision and treatment method used

Longterm prediction of failure after treatment of cervical precancer

Non peer reviewe

Using the VALGENT-3 framework to assess the clinical and analytical performance of the RIATOL qPCR HPV genotyping assay

Background and objective: The VALGENT framework is developed to assess the clinical performance of HPV tests that offer genotyping capability. Samples from the VALGENT-3 panel are used to identify an optimal viral concentration threshold for the RIATOL qPCR HPV genotyping assay (RIATOL qPCR) to assure non-inferior accuracy to detect high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), compared to Qiagen Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), a standard comparator test validated for cervical cancer screening. Study design: The VALGENT-3 panel comprised 1300 samples from women participating in the Slovenian cervical cancer screening programme, enriched with 300 samples from women with abnormal cytology. In follow-up, 126 women were diagnosed with CIN2+ (defined as diseased) and 1167 women had two consecutive negative Pap smears (defined as non-diseased). All 1600 samples were analyzed with the RIATOL qPCR. Viral concentration was expressed as viral log10 of the number of copies/ml. A zone of viral concentration cut-offs was defined by relative ROC analysis where the sensitivity and specificity were not inferior to HC2. Results: The RIATOL qPCR had a sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ of 97.6% (CI: 93.2-99.5%) and 85.1% (CI: 82.9-87.1%), respectively, when the analytical cut off was used. At a cut off of 6.5, RIATOL qPCR had a sensitivity of 96.0% (CI: 91.0-98.7%) and a specificity of 89.5% (87.6-91.2%). At optimized cut off, accuracy of the qPCR was non-inferior to the HC2 with a relative sensitivity of 1.00 [CI: 0.95-1.05 (p= 0.006)] and relative specificity of 1.00 [CI: 0.98-1.01 (p= 0.0069)]. Conclusions: The RIATOL qPCR has a high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of CIN2+. By using a fixed cut-off based on viral concentration, the test is non-inferior to HC2. HPV tests that provide viral concentration measurements or other quantifiable signals allow flexibility to optimize accuracy required for cervical cancer screening

Cervical cancer prevention in transgender men : a review

Funding MA was supported by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation of the European Commission, through the RISCC Network (grant no.847845)Peer reviewedPostprin

Women's knowledge about cervical cancer risk factors, screening, and reasons for non-participation in cervical cancer screening programme in Estonia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The attendance rate in Estonian cervical cancer screening programme is too low therefore the programme is hardly effective. A cross-sectional population based survey was performed to identify awareness of cervical cancer risk factors, reasons why women do not want to participate in cervical screening programme and wishes for better organisation of the programme.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>An anonymous questionnaire with a covering letter and a prepaid envelope was sent together with the screening invitation to 2942 randomly selected women. Results are based on the analysis of 1054 (36%) returned questionnaires.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Main reasons for non-participation in the national screening programme were a recent visit to a gynaecologist (42.3%), fear to give a Pap-smear (14.3%), long appointment queues (12.9%) and unsuitable reception hours (11.8%). Fear to give a Pap-smear was higher among women aged 30 and 35 than 50 and 55 (RR 1.46; 95% CI: 0.82-2.59) and women with one or no deliveries (RR 1.56, 95% CI: 0.94-2.58). In general, awareness of cervical cancer risk factors is poor and it does not depend on socio-demographic factors. Awareness of screening was higher among Estonians than Russians (RR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.46-1.86). Most women prefer to receive information about screening from personally mailed invitation letters (74.8%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Women need more information about cervical cancer risk factors and the screening programme. They prefer personally addressed information sharing. Minority groups should be addressed in their own language. A better collaboration with service providers and discouraging smears outside the programme are also required.</p

Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries

A questionnaire survey was conducted by the Epidemiology Working Group of the European Cervical Cancer Screening Network, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC, between August and December 2003 in 35 centres in 20 European countries with reliable cervical cancer incidence and/or mortality data in databanks held at IARC and WHO. The questionnaire was completed by 28 centres from 20 countries. The final tables included information on 25 centres from 18 countries. Six countries had started screening in the 1960s, whereas 10 countries or regions had started at least a pilot programme by 2003. There were six invitational and nine partially invitational programmes, the rest employing opportunistic screening only. Recommended lifetime number of smears varied from seven to more than 50. Coverage of smear test within the recommended screening interval (usually 3 or 5 years) was above 80% in three countries. Screening registration took place in 13 programmes. Eight programmes reported the rates of screen-detected cervical cancers and precursor lesions. There was wide variation in the CIN3 detection rates. International guidelines and quality assurance protocols are useful for monitoring and evaluating screening programmes systematically. Our survey indicated that the recommendations as currently given are met in only few European countries. Health authorities need to consider stronger measures and incentives than those laid out in the current set of recommendations

HPV testing as a triage for borderline or mild dyskaryosis on cervical cytology: results from the Sentinel Sites study

BACKGROUND: Earlier pilot studies of human papillomavirus (HPV) triage concluded that HPV triage was feasible and cost-effective. The aim of the present study was to study the impact of wider rollout of HPV triage for women with low-grade cytology on colposcopy referral and outcomes. METHODS: Human papillomavirus testing of liquid-based cytology (LBC) samples showing low-grade abnormalities was used to select women for colposcopy referral at six sites in England. Samples from 10 051 women aged 25-64 years with routine call or recall cytology reported as borderline or mild dyskaryosis were included. RESULTS: Human papillomavirus-positive rates were 53.7% in women with borderline cytology and 83.9% in those with mild dyskaryosis. The range between sites was 34.8-73.3% for borderline cytology, and 73.4-91.6% for mild dyskaryosis. In the single site using both LBC technologies there was no difference in rates between the two technologies. The positive predictive value of an HPV test was 16.3% for CIN2 or worse and 6.1% for CIN3 or worse, although there was considerable variation between sites. CONCLUSION: Triaging women with borderline cytological abnormalities and mild dyskaryosis with HPV testing would allow approximately a third of these women to be returned immediately to routine recall, and for a substantial proportion to be referred for colposcopy without repeat cytology. Variation in HPV-positive rates results in differing colposcopy workload. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 105, 983-988. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.326 www.bjcancer.com Published online 6 September 2011 (C) 2011 Cancer Research U

Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial lesions and early invasive disease.

BACKGROUND: The mean age of women undergoing local treatment for pre-invasive cervical disease (cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia; CIN) or early cervical cancer (stage IA1) is around their 30s and similar to the age of women having their first child. Local cervical treatment has been correlated to adverse reproductive morbidity in a subsequent pregnancy, however, published studies and meta-analyses have reached contradictory conclusions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of local cervical treatment for CIN and early cervical cancer on obstetric outcomes (after 24 weeks of gestation) and to correlate these to the cone depth and comparison group used. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (up to June week 4, 2017) and Embase (up to week 26, 2017). In an attempt to identify articles missed by the search or unpublished data, we contacted experts in the field and we handsearched the references of the retrieved articles and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all studies reporting on obstetric outcomes (more than 24 weeks of gestation) in women with or without a previous local cervical treatment for any grade of CIN or early cervical cancer (stage IA1). Treatment included both excisional and ablative methods. We excluded studies that had no untreated reference population, reported outcomes in women who had undergone treatment during pregnancy or had a high-risk treated or comparison group, or both DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We classified studies according to the type of treatment and the obstetric endpoint. Studies were classified according to method and obstetric endpoint. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model and inverse variance. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. We assessed maternal outcomes that included preterm birth (PTB) (spontaneous and threatened), preterm premature rupture of the membranes (pPROM), chorioamnionitis, mode of delivery, length of labour, induction of delivery, oxytocin use, haemorrhage, analgesia, cervical cerclage and cervical stenosis. The neonatal outcomes included low birth weight (LBW), neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, stillbirth, perinatal mortality and Apgar scores. MAIN RESULTS: We included 69 studies (6,357,823 pregnancies: 65,098 pregnancies of treated and 6,292,725 pregnancies of untreated women). Many of the studies included only small numbers of women, were of heterogenous design and in their majority retrospective and therefore at high risk of bias. Many outcomes were assessed to be of low or very low quality (GRADE assessment) and therefore results should be interpreted with caution. Women who had treatment were at increased overall risk of preterm birth (PTB) (less than 37 weeks) (10.7% versus 5.4%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.57 to 1.96, 59 studies, 5,242,917 participants, very low quality), severe (less than 32 to 34 weeks) (3.5% versus 1.4%, RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.82), 24 studies, 3,793,874 participants, very low quality), and extreme prematurity (less than 28 to 30 weeks) (1.0% versus 0.3%, (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.22, 8 studies, 3,910,629 participants, very low quality), as compared to women who had no treatment.The risk of overall prematurity was higher for excisional (excision versus no treatment: 11.2% versus 5.5%, RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.64 to 2.12, 53 studies, 4,599,416 participants) than ablative (ablation versus no treatment: 7.7% versus 4.6%, RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.52, 14 studies, 602,370 participants) treatments and the effect was higher for more radical excisional techniques (less than 37 weeks: cold knife conisation (CKC) (RR 2.70, 95% CI 2.14 to 3.40, 12 studies, 39,102 participants), laser conisation (LC) (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.54, 9 studies, 1509 participants), large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.81, 25 studies, 1,445,104 participants). Repeat treatment multiplied the risk of overall prematurity (repeat versus no treatment: 13.2% versus 4.1%, RR 3.78, 95% CI 2.65 to 5.39, 11 studies, 1,317,284 participants, very low quality). The risk of overall prematurity increased with increasing cone depth (less than 10 mm to 12 mm versus no treatment: 7.1% versus 3.4%, RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.18, 8 studies, 550,929 participants, very low quality; more than 10 mm to 12 mm versus no treatment: 9.8% versus 3.4%, RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.31, 8 studies, 552,711 participants, low quality; more than 15 mm to 17 mm versus no treatment: 10.1 versus 3.4%, RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.95 to 3.93, 4 studies, 544,986 participants, very low quality; 20 mm or more versus no treatment: 10.2% versus 3.4%, RR 4.91, 95% CI 2.06 to 11.68, 3 studies, 543,750 participants, very low quality). The comparison group affected the magnitude of effect that was higher for external, followed by internal comparators and ultimately women with disease, but no treatment. Untreated women with disease and the pre-treatment pregnancies of the women who were treated subsequently had higher risk of overall prematurity than the general population (5.9% versus 5.6%, RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.34, 15 studies, 4,357,998 participants, very low quality).pPROM (6.1% versus 3.4%, RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.17, 21 studies, 477,011 participants, very low quality), low birth weight (7.9% versus 3.7%, RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.07, 30 studies, 1,348,206 participants, very low quality), NICU admission rate (12.6% versus 8.9%, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.81, 8 studies, 2557 participants, low quality) and perinatal mortality (0.9% versus 0.7%, RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.03, 23 studies, 1,659,433 participants, low quality) were also increased after treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Women with CIN have a higher baseline risk for prematurity. Excisional and ablative treatment appears to further increases that risk. The frequency and severity of adverse sequelae increases with increasing cone depth and is higher for excision than it is for ablation. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as they were based on low or very low quality (GRADE assessment) observational studies, most of which were retrospective