Endocervical Margins Status in Excision for Preventing Cervical Cancer According to the Transformation Zone Type.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the outcomes of 610 excision types I and II in a referral facility as a function of transformation zone (TZ) types. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of women with cervical precursor lesions who underwent loop electrocautery excision procedure from 2017 to 2019 at the University of Campinas. The primary outcome was endocervical margin status, negative or positive. Other variables were excision type (I/II), TZ (1/2/3), age, menopausal status, hormonal contraceptives, smoking, and sexual debut. Tests used were chi-square or Fisher exact, Mann-Whitney, and simple and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The most frequent was TZ 1 (62.5%). Excision II was the most frequent: 54.1% in TZ 1, 67.2% in TZ 2, and 82.1% in TZ 3. A negative margin was observed in TZ 1, 76.0% when excision I and 86.4% when excision II ( p = .009); TZ 2, 86.4% when excision I and 88.9% when excision II ( p = .672); and TZ 3, 76.5% when excision I and 78.9% when excision II ( p = .672). Multivariate analysis revealed in TZ 1 a 2.12 (1.23-3.65) higher risk of obtaining a negative margin in excision type II. In TZ 2 and 3, none of the variables predicted the chance of a negative margin. CONCLUSIONS: The endocervical margin was negative in 3 in every 4 women who underwent loop electrocautery excision procedure, regardless of excision type. Age, menopausal status, smoking, and hormonal contraception did not predict margin status.

The value of the endocervical margin status in LEEP: analysis of 610 cases.

PURPOSE: To describe the results of 610 patients who underwent LEEP and evaluate factors related to a negative margin. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients treated by LEEP at a colposcopy referral service in Campinas, Brazil, 2017-2019. Patients were referred to treat high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or adenocarcinoma in situ suspected by cytology and colposcopy (screen-and-treat) or by biopsy. Descriptive analysis was performed by frequencies as a function of the status of the margins (negative or positive). Factors associated with margin status were assessed by regression. RESULTS: The endocervical, ectocervical or both margins were negative in 82.4%, 75.7% and 65.9%, respectively. Age, sexual debut, parity, menopause status, smoking and hormonal contraception showed no difference in the proportion of negative margins. Both margins were negative in 66.1% of patients with transformation zone type(TZ) 1, 73.1% of TZ 2, and 54.7% of TZ 3 (p = 0.015). The endocervical negative margin was obtained in 78.0% of patients submitted to excision I (loop 10 mm) and 82.5% to excision II (loop 15 mm) (p = 0.016). Having the sexual debut at 18 years or older or being submitted to an excision type II doubled the chance of negative endocervical margin (1.98;1.04-3.77 and 1.95; 1.18-3.21, respectively). CONCLUSION: The proportion of negative endocervical margin was 78% in excision I and 86% in excision II. Sexual onset and excision type II increased the chance of obtaining a negative endocervical margin.