Zeng Rong, Guo Yulin, Zou Miao, Wang Chaonan, Wu Xufeng
Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hubei Cancer Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Cervical Cancer Control Center of Hubei Province. Maternal and Childe Health Hospital of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China.
Front Oncol. 2025 Jun 9;15:1571130. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1571130. eCollection 2025.
Compared to definitive hysterectomy, cervical conization with negative margin remains a controversial management for AIS currently. Our study aimed to evaluate (1) the effect of conization with negative margin alone or subsequent hysterectomy, (2) the effect of LEEP and CKC with or without subsequent hysterectomy, and (3) the correlation between clinicopathologic characteristics and residual disease after conization.
This retrospective study involved 59 AIS patients who had negative margins through conization, with or without subsequent hysterectomy, focusing on clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes.
A total of 59 patients with a median age of 34 years were followed for 3-95 months (median follow-up period: 35 months). Furthermore, 20 patients underwent subsequent hysterectomy (hysterectomy group) and 39 patients underwent conization alone (conization group). There were 24 patients who obtained negative margin through LEEP (LEEP group) and 35 patients through CKC (CKC group). Firstly, no significant difference in the rate of disease recurrence (2.6% vs. 0%, -value = 1.0), HR-HPV positivity at first follow-up (15.4% vs. 5.0%, -value = 0.404), or HR-HPV clearance (84.6% vs. 95.0%, -value = 0.404) was found between the conization and hysterectomy groups. Secondly, no significant difference in the rate of disease recurrence (0% vs. 2.6%, -value = 1.0), HR-HPV positivity at first follow-up (8.3% vs. 10.3%, -value = 0.689), or HR-HPV clearance (91.7% vs. 89.7%, -value = 0.689) was found between the CKC and LEEP groups. Lastly, five patients (25.0%) with residual disease were found in the hysterectomy group. All five patients were CIN coexisting with AIS (AIS-plus-CIN), and AIS-plus-CIN was identified as an independent risk for residual disease after conization (HR: 3.64, 95% CI: 1.01-4.26, -value = 0.027). Moreover, one patient developing a recurrent disease was AIS-plus-CIN in the conization group.
Either CKC or LEEP with negative margin could achieve an equivalent effect compared with subsequent hysterectomy and could be recommended as an alternative therapy for AIS. However, subsequent hysterectomy is advised for AIS-plus-CIN.
与根治性子宫切除术相比,切缘阴性的宫颈锥切术目前仍是治疗原位腺癌(AIS)存在争议的一种处理方式。我们的研究旨在评估:(1)单纯切缘阴性的锥切术或后续子宫切除术的效果;(2)环形电切术(LEEP)和冷刀锥切术(CKC)在有或没有后续子宫切除术情况下的效果;(3)锥切术后临床病理特征与残留疾病之间的相关性。
这项回顾性研究纳入了59例经锥切术切缘阴性的AIS患者,这些患者有或没有接受后续子宫切除术,重点关注临床病理特征和结局。
共59例患者,中位年龄34岁,随访3至95个月(中位随访期:35个月)。此外,20例患者接受了后续子宫切除术(子宫切除组),39例患者仅接受了锥切术(锥切组)。24例患者通过LEEP获得切缘阴性(LEEP组),35例患者通过CKC获得切缘阴性(CKC组)。首先,锥切组和子宫切除组在疾病复发率(2.6%对0%,P值=1.0)、首次随访时高危型人乳头瘤病毒(HR-HPV)阳性率(15.4%对5.0%,P值=0.404)或HR-HPV清除率(84.6%对95.0%,P值=0.404)方面未发现显著差异。其次,CKC组和LEEP组在疾病复发率(0%对2.6%,P值=1.0)、首次随访时HR-HPV阳性率(8.3%对10.3%,P值=0.689)或HR-HPV清除率(91.7%对89.7%,P值=0.689)方面未发现显著差异。最后,在子宫切除组中发现5例(25.0%)有残留疾病的患者。所有5例患者均为CIN合并AIS(AIS加CIN),并且AIS加CIN被确定为锥切术后残留疾病的独立风险因素(风险比:3.64,95%置信区间:1.01 - 4.26,P值=0.027)。此外,锥切组中有1例复发疾病的患者为AIS加CIN。
切缘阴性的CKC或LEEP与后续子宫切除术相比可取得同等效果,可被推荐作为AIS的替代治疗方法。然而,对于AIS加CIN患者建议行后续子宫切除术。