1997
DOI: 10.1159/000332695
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Case for Cytologic Follow-up After LEEP

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
1
4

Year Published

2002
2002
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
14
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Approximately 15% of patients with CIN 2-3 that are treated by LEEP will experience a persistence/recurrence of their disease [12]. The significance of margin status as a predictor of disease persistence/recurrence is somewhat controversial [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. However, most studies have shown that CIN 2-3-positive margins on a LEEP or conization specimen correlate with an increased risk of recurrent/ persistent dysplasia.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Approximately 15% of patients with CIN 2-3 that are treated by LEEP will experience a persistence/recurrence of their disease [12]. The significance of margin status as a predictor of disease persistence/recurrence is somewhat controversial [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. However, most studies have shown that CIN 2-3-positive margins on a LEEP or conization specimen correlate with an increased risk of recurrent/ persistent dysplasia.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1,2,4 -6 Studies addressing the relationship between the histologic findings in LEEP specimens and subsequent recurrent disease have suggested that margin status is critical; however, these reports are conflicting. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Endocervical gland involvement by dysplasia also has been shown to be associated with higher rates of recurrent dysplasia in both LEEP and cold-knife cone biopsies. 11,15 Multiple-quadrant involvement of dysplasia is reported to be associated with a higher rate of dysplasia recurrence.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…L'association test HPV plus cytologie à six mois est l'option la plus sensible pour la détection des récidives, mais l'espacement du premier contrôle à six mois plutôt qu'à trois peut augmenter le nombre des perdues de vue et ainsi contribuer à l'absence de surveillance efficace. Le nombre des perdues de vue augmente progressivement au fur et à mesure de la période de surveillance [70,71] (NP2). En revanche, le nombre de faux positifs est probablement moindre à six mois qu'à trois mois (le système immunitaire stimulé par l'intervention ayant plus de temps d'agir sur les petites lésions résiduelles et de se débarrasser d'HPVhr qui risqueraient de faire considérer à tort la patiente comme à haut risque de récidive).…”
Section: Auteursunclassified