Sánchez-Gómez R, González-Benítez C, Ruíz-Martínez T, Alonso-Luque B, Serrano-Velasco M

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 787-793
PDF size: 238.78 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: to investigate the possible causes of the negative cones, to establish strategies to reduce their incidence and to develop monitoring protocols.
Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective observational cases and controls study of 432 conizations made in the Hospital Universitario La Paz (HULP) between 2013 and 2015. The most important analysed variables were the pathological anatomy of the piece and its relationship with the biopsy and previous cytology, the cone length, as well as the presence and artefact and cervicitis. The analysis it was used Chi – Square and Fisher´s test, T-Student, Mann Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis and Kolmogorov- Smirnov.
Results: There are two groups: 371 positive (85,9%) and 61 negative cones (14,1%). We find statistically significant differences in the cytology, colposcopy and biopsy preconization, finding a major percentage of injuries of lesser degree in the patients with negative cone. The length of the cone was lower in the analysis group and in this we also observed a greater percentage of cervicitis and artefacts.
Conclusions: The causes that make the remaining injury not appear after a diagnosed and/or therapeutic conization are a wide variety and difficult to prove. We should try to treat the patients with inflammation or atrophy to avoid false positives in the cytology and biopsy, improve the surgical technique to avoid artefacts and perform conservative management of low-risk injuries.

REFERENCES

1. Oncoguía SEGO. Prevención del cáncer de cuello de útero. Guías de práctica clínica en cáncer ginecológico y mamario. Publicaciones SEGO, octubre 2014.

2. Rodríguez-Manfredi A, et al. Predictors of absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the conization specimen. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128: 271-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ygyno.2012.10.020

3. Koc N, et al S. Reevaluation of negative cone biopsy results after a positive cervical biopsy finding. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013; 17:154-9. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31825c33f9

4. Golbang P, Scurry J, De Jong S, et al. Investigation of 100 consecutive negative cone biopsies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 104:100-4.

5. Diakomanolis E, Haidopoulos D, Chatzipapas I, et al. Negative cone biopsies. A reappraisal. J Reprod Med. 2003; 48: 617-21.

6. Carrig A, et al. Examination of sources of diagnostic error leading to cervical cone biopsies with no evidence of dysplasia. Am J Clin Pathol 2013;139:422-27. https://doi. org/10.1309/AJCP6BSD0SNGQLHQ

7. Baser E, et al. Clinical outcomes of cases with absent cervical displasia in cold knife conization specimens. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013; 14 (11): 6693-96. doi: 10.7314/ APJCP.2013.14.11.6693

8. Martin-Hirsch PPL, et al. Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD001318. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD001318.pub3.

9. Ioffe OB, et al. Artifact in cervical LLETZ specimens: correlation with follow-up. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1999;18(2):115- 21.

10. García-Ramos AM, et al. Quality evaluation of cone biopsy specimens obtained by large loop excision of the transformation zone. J Clin Med Res. 2015;7(4):220-4. doi: 10. 14740/jocmr1951w. Epub 2015 Feb 9.

11. Del Mistro A, et al. Long-Term Clinical Outcome after treatment for high-grade cervical lesions: a retrospective monoinstitutional cohort study. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:984528, 8 pages. http://dx.doi. org/10.1155/2015/984528

12. Walavalkar V, et al. Absence or presence of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in cervical conization specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2016; 145:96-100. https:// doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqv007