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. ConclusionThere 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. IntroductionCervical screening for the early identification and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia has reduced the incidence and mortality from cervical cancer. 1 As the precancerous lesions and their treatment typically occur in women of reproductive age, the impact of conisation on the outcomes of subsequent pregnancies has been an area of active research for the past decade.Meta-analyses 2 3 and large retrospective linkage studies 4 5 suggest that the excisional methods of treatment (cold knife conisation, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ), andCorrespondence to: M Kyrgiou m.kyrgiou@imperial.ac.uk Extra material supplied b...
BackgroundSubjective visual assessment of cervical cytology is flawed, and this can manifest itself by inter- and intra-observer variability resulting ultimately in the degree of discordance in the grading categorisation of samples in screening vs. representative histology. Biospectroscopy methods have been suggested as sensor-based tools that can deliver objective assessments of cytology. However, studies to date have been apparently flawed by a corresponding lack of diagnostic efficiency when samples have previously been classed using cytology screening. This raises the question as to whether categorisation of cervical cytology based on imperfect conventional screening reduces the diagnostic accuracy of biospectroscopy approaches; are these latter methods more accurate and diagnose underlying disease? The purpose of this study was to compare the objective accuracy of infrared (IR) spectroscopy of cervical cytology samples using conventional cytology vs. histology-based categorisation.MethodsWithin a typical clinical setting, a total of n = 322 liquid-based cytology samples were collected immediately before biopsy. Of these, it was possible to acquire subsequent histology for n = 154. Cytology samples were categorised according to conventional screening methods and subsequently interrogated employing attenuated total reflection Fourier-transform IR (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy. IR spectra were pre-processed and analysed using linear discriminant analysis. Dunn’s test was applied to identify the differences in spectra. Within the diagnostic categories, histology allowed us to determine the comparative efficiency of conventional screening vs. biospectroscopy to correctly identify either true atypia or underlying disease.ResultsConventional cytology-based screening results in poor sensitivity and specificity. IR spectra derived from cervical cytology do not appear to discriminate in a diagnostic fashion when categories were based on conventional screening. Scores plots of IR spectra exhibit marked crossover of spectral points between different cytological categories. Although, significant differences between spectral bands in different categories are noted, crossover samples point to the potential for poor specificity and hampers the development of biospectroscopy as a diagnostic tool. However, when histology-based categories are used to conduct analyses, the scores plot of IR spectra exhibit markedly better segregation.ConclusionsHistology demonstrates that ATR-FTIR spectroscopy of liquid-based cytology identifies the presence of underlying atypia or disease missed in conventional cytology screening. This study points to an urgent need for a future biospectroscopy study where categories are based on such histology. It will allow for the validation of this approach as a screening tool.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.