Incomplete excision of cervical precancer as a predictor of treatment failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background Incomplete excision of cervical precancer is associated with therapeutic failure and is therefore considered as a quality indicator of clinical practice. Conversely, the risk of preterm birth is reported to correlate with size of cervical excision and therefore balancing the risk of adequate treatment with iatrogenic harm is challenging. We reviewed the literature with an aim to reveal whether incomplete excision, reflected by presence of precancerous tissue at the section margins, or post-treatment HPV testing are accurate predictors of treatment failure. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the risk of therapeutic failure associated with the histological status of the margins of the tissue excised to treat cervical precancer. We estimated the accuracy of the margin status to predict occurrence of residual or recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade two or worse (CIN2+) and compared it with post-treatment high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. We searched for published systematic reviews and new references from PubMed-MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and did also a new search spanning the period Jan 1, 1975, until Feb 1, 2016. Studies were eligible if women underwent treatment by excision of a histologically confirmed CIN2+ lesion, with verification of presence or absence of CIN at the resection margins; were tested by cytology or HPV assay between 3 months and 9 months after treatment; and had subsequent follow…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A 2017 meta-analysis reported lower rates of margin positivity and recurrence for knife and laser cones than for LLETZ.
“Another meta-analysis published in 2017 reported lower rates of margin positivity and recurrence for knife and laser cones than for LLETZ.”
Cites
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554 · see citing works
Kyrgiou, M., Athanasiou, A., Paraskevaidi, M., Mitra, A., Kalliala, I., Martin-Hirsch, P., Arbyn, M., Bennett, P., & Paraskevaidis, E. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i3633 · Cited by 495 · see citing works
Self-citationSurgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
Martin-Hirsch, P. P., Paraskevaidis, E., Bryant, A., & Dickinson, H. O. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001318.pub3 · Cited by 415 · see citing works
Arbyn, M., Xu, L., Verdoodt, F., Cuzick, J., Szarewski, A., Belinson, J. L., Wentzensen, N., Gage, J. C., & Khan, M. J. (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-2735 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Athanasiou, A., Veroniki, A. A., Efthimiou, O., Kalliala, I., Naci, H., Bowden, S., Paraskevaidi, M., Arbyn, M., Lyons, D., Martin-Hirsch, P., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00334-5 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Arbyn, M., Redman, C. W. E., Verdoodt, F., Kyrgiou, M., Tzafetas, M., Ghaem-Maghami, S., Petry, K.-U., Leeson, S., Bergeron, C., Nieminen, P., Gondry, J., Reich, O., & Moss, E. L.
- Affiliations
- Institut Scientifique de Santé Publique (BE)
- University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust (GB)
- Danish Cancer Society (DK)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (GB)
- Helsinki University Hospital (FI)
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Amiens-Picardie (FR)
- Medical University of Graz (AT)
- University of Leicester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Arbyn, Marc
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1665-1679
- ISSN
- 1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2767266730
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology
- Genesis Research Trust
- Universiteit van Amsterdam
- Institut National Du Cancer
- Medical Research Council (MC_PC_15028)
- Institute of Cancer Research
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
- Keywords
- cervical precancerous lesions, incomplete excision, surgical margins, treatment failure, high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, LLETZ, preterm birth, iatrogenic injury, quality indicators
- MeSH terms
- Margins of Excision, Adult, Aged, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Precancerous Conditions, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Survival Analysis, Treatment Failure, Neoplasm, Residual, Risk Assessment, Quality Indicators, Health Care
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