Cited by 74Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments

Proportion of cervical excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia as a predictor of pregnancy outcomes

Kyrgiou, Maria, Valasoulis, George, Stasinou, Sofia‐Melina, Founta, Christina, Athanasiou, Antonios, Bennett, Phillip, Paraskevadis, Evangelos·2015·International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract

Objective To assess how the proportion of the cervical volume/length removed during treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) varies and whether this correlates to the pregnancy duration at delivery. Methods The present prospective observational study included 142 women undergoing CIN treatment at a university hospital during 2009-2013. The pretreatment and post-treatment cervical dimensions and cone size were measured with magnetic resonance imaging, three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography, or two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography, and the correlation between pregnancy outcomes and the relative proportion of the cervix excised was assessed. Results Pretreatment cervical volumes and cone volumes varied substantially (range 11-40 cm(3) and 0.6-8 cm(3), respectively). The proportion of the volume excised ranged from 2.2% to 39.4%. Sixteen (11%) women conceived following treatment; 12 had a live birth (seven at term, three preterm). The pregnancy duration at delivery was significantly correlated with the proportion of the cervical volume (r=-0.9; P Conclusion The pretreatment cervical dimensions and the proportions of the volume/length excised vary substantially, and the latter correlates with the pregnancy duration. Assessment of the proportion excised might help to stratify women at risk who need intensive surveillance when pregnant.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.07.038

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kyrgiou, M., Valasoulis, G., Stasinou, S., Founta, C., Athanasiou, A., Bennett, P., & Paraskevadis, E.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
  • Worthing Hospital (GB)
  • Hammersmith Hospital (GB)
  • Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University Hospital of Ioannina (GR)
Corresponding author
Kyrgiou, Maria
Venue
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-02
Volume
128
Issue
2
Pages
141-147
ISSN
  • 0020-6695 (ISSN-L)
  • 0020-7292
  • 1879-3479
OpenAlex
W1989967236
Cited by
74
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
6.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2019-07-19)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Research and Development of the University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
  • Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust NIHR Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Keywords
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, conization, pregnancy outcomes, gestational age at delivery, live birth, preterm birth, pregnancy surveillance
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Hospitals, University, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Neoplastic, Pregnancy Outcome, Prospective Studies, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review