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

Tracking the Impact of Excisional Cervical Treatment on the Cervix using Biospectroscopy

Local excisional treatment for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) is linked to significant adverse sequelae including preterm birth, with cone depth and radicality of treatment correlating to the frequency and severity of adverse events. Attenuated total reflection Fourier-transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy can detect underlying cervical disease more accurately than conventional cytology. The chemical profile of cells pre- and post-treatment may differ as a result of altered biochemical processes due to excision, or treatment of the disease. Since pre-treatment cervical length varies amongst women, the percentage of cervix excised may correlate more accurately to risk than absolute dimensions. We show that treatment for CIN significantly alters the biochemistry of the cervix, compared with women who have not had treatment; this is due to the removal of cervical tissue rather than the removal of the disease. However, the spectra do not seem to correlate to the cone depth or proportion of cervical length excised. Future research should aim to explore the impact of treatment in a larger cohort

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

Letter to the editor on Body mass index and 20-specific cancers-re-analyses of dose-response meta-analyses of observational studies

Peer reviewe

High prevalence of HPV 51 in an unvaccinated population and implications for HPV vaccines

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is detected in 99.7% of cervical cancers. Current vaccines target types 16 and 18. Prior to vaccination implementation, a prospective cohort study was conducted to determine baseline HPV prevalence in unvaccinated women in Wales; after HPV16 and HPV18, HPV 51 was found to be most prevalent. This study aimed to re-assess the unexpected high prevalence of HPV 51 and consider its potential for type-replacement. Two hundred HPV 51 positive samples underwent re-analysis by repeating the original methodology using HPV 51 GP5+/6+ PCR-enzyme immunoassay, and additionally a novel assay of HPV 51 E7 PCR. Data were correlated with age, social deprivation and cytology. Direct repeat of HPV 51 PCR-EIA identified 146/195 (75.0%) samples as HPV 51 positive; E7 PCR identified 166/195 (85.1%) samples as HPV 51 positive. HPV 51 prevalence increased with cytological grade. The prevalence of HPV 51 in the pre-vaccinated population was truly high. E7 DNA assays may offer increased specificity for HPV genotyping. Cross-protection of current vaccines against less-prevalent HPV types warrants further study. This study highlights the need for longitudinal investigation into the prevalence of non-vaccine HPV types, especially those phylogenetically different to vaccine types for potential type-replacement. Ongoing surveillance will inform future vaccines

Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis

Objective To assess the relative risk of perinatal mortality, severe preterm delivery, and low birth weight associated with previous treatment for precursors of cervical cancer

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

Invasive cervical cancer following treatment of pre-invasive lesions: A potential theory based on a small case series

Peer reviewe

How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?

Background. Organized screening programs often rely on written materials to inform the public. In the United Kingdom, women invited for cervical cancer screening receive a leaflet from the National Health Service (NHS) to support screening decisions. However, information about screening may be too complex for people to understand, potentially hindering informed decision making. Objectives. We aimed to identify women’s difficulties in interpreting the leaflet used in England and negative and positive responses to the leaflet. Methods. We used a sequential mixedmethods design involving 2 steps: cognitive think-aloud interviews (n = 20), followed by an England-wide survey (n = 602). Data were collected between June 2017 and December 2018, and participants included women aged 25 to 64 y with varying sociodemographics. Results. Interview results revealed misunderstandings concerning screening results, benefits, and additional tests and treatment, although participants tended to react positively to numerical information. Participants were often unfamiliar with the potential harms associated with screening (i.e., screening risks), key aspects of human papillomavirus, and complex terms (e.g., dyskaryosis). Survey results indicated that interpretation difficulties were common (M correct items = 12.5 of 23). Lower understanding was associated with lower educational level (b’s .0.15, P’s \0.001), lower numeracy scores (b = 0.36, P \ 0.001), and nonwhite ethnicity (b = 0.10, P = 0.007). The leaflet was evaluated positively overall. Conclusions. Despite previous user testing of the leaflet, key information may be too complex for some recipients. As a consequence, they may struggle to make informed decisions about screening participation based on the information provided. We discuss implications for the improvement of communications about screening and decision support

Incidence and mortality from cervical cancer and other malignancies after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

Background Although local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) are highly effective, it has been reported that treated women remain at increased risk of cervical and other cancers. Our aim is to explore the risk of developing or dying from cervical cancer and other human papillomavirus (HPV)- and non-HPV-related malignancies after CIN treatment and infer its magnitude compared with the general population. Materials and methods Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria: Studies with registry-based follow-up reporting cancer incidence or mortality after CIN treatment. Data synthesis: Summary effects were estimated using random-effects models. Outcomes Incidence rate of cervical cancer among women treated for CIN (per 100 000 woman-years). Relative risk (RR) of cervical cancer, other HPV-related anogenital tract cancer (vagina, vulva, anus), any cancer, and mortality, for women treated for CIN versus the general population. Results Twenty-seven studies were eligible. The incidence rate for cervical cancer after CIN treatment was 39 per 100 000 woman-years (95% confidence interval 22–69). The RR of cervical cancer was elevated compared with the general population (3.30, 2.57–4.24; P <0.001). The RR was higher for women more than 50 years old and remained elevated for at least 20 years after treatment. The RR of vaginal (10.84, 5.58–21.10; P <0.001), vulvar (3.34, 2.39–4.67; P <0.001), and anal cancer (5.11, 2.73–9.55; P <0.001) was also higher. Mortality from cervical/vaginal cancer was elevated, but our estimate was more uncertain (RR 5.04, 0.69–36.94; P = 0.073). Conclusions Women treated for CIN have a considerably higher risk to be later diagnosed with cervical and other HPV-related cancers compared with the general population. The higher risk of cervical cancer lasts for at least 20 years after treatment and is higher for women more than 50 years of age. Prolonged follow-up beyond the last screening round may be warranted for previously treated women.Peer reviewe