ArticleBMC cancer2018
Oncological and reproductive outcomes of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix managed with the loop electrosurgical excision procedure.
Article in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis and Management of Adenocarcinoma in Situ: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology Evidence-Based Review and Recommendations.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Guideline
- Risks of Cervical Cancer Recurrence After Fertility-Sparing Surgery and the Role of Human Papillomavirus Infection Types.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The effect of fluoxetine combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on the psychological emotions and cognitive and neurological functions of acute post-stroke depression patients.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Gynecologic cancer in pregnancy.Gynecologic oncology · 2020Review
- Cervical Lesion Evaluation in Females of Reproductive Age in Ondo Town, Nigeria.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe standard treatment for cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) is hysterectomy, which is a more aggressive treatment than that used for squamous intraepithelial lesions. Several previous studies have primarily demonstrated that the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) is as safe and effective as cold knife cone (CKC) biopsy when AIS is unexpectedly found in a loop excision. This study evaluated the safety of LEEP as the initial treatment for patients with AIS who were strictly selected and evaluated before and after loop resection.
methodsThe oncological and reproductive outcomes of a series of AIS patients who underwent LEEP as the initial treatment between February 2006 and December 2016 were retrospectively evaluated.
resultsA total of 44 women were eligible for analysis. The mean age at diagnosis was 36.1 years, and 14 patients were nulliparous. Multiple lesions were identified in 4 (9.1%) patients. Either hysterectomy (6 patients) or repeat cone biopsies (3 patients) were performed in 8 of the 10 patients who presented positive or not evaluable surgical resection margins (SMs) on the initial LEEP specimens. Residual disease was detected in two patients. All patients were closely followed for a mean of 36.9 months via human papillomavirus testing, PAP smears, colposcopy, and endocervical curettage when necessary. No recurrences were detected. Of the 16 patients who desired to become pregnant, 8 (50%) successfully conceived, and the full-term live birth rate was 83.3% among this subgroup.
conclusionsLEEP with negative SMs was a safe and feasible fertility-sparing surgical procedure for patients with AIS, and the obstetric outcome was satisfactory. However, long-term follow-up is mandatory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.