Scholarlink

Objective <p>The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of cold-knife conization (CKC) and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) in treating cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and identify relevant risk factors within a recent cohort from a tertiary hospital in China.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent a conization procedure with a preoperative or postoperative diagnosis of AIS of the cervix from January 2021 to July 2024. Clinicopathological data and follow-up results were collected, with recurrence-free survival (RFS) as the primary endpoint.</p> Results <p>Among the 251 patients included, 161 (64.14%) underwent LEEP and 90 (35.86%) underwent CKC as primary treatment. Overall, 29.9% (75/251) underwent eventual hysterectomy. Median follow-up was 36 months. The positive margin rate was lower in the CKC group than in the LEEP group (16.7% vs. 31.7%, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that LEEP (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.13–4.58, <i>P</i> = 0.021), TZ type 2 or 3 (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12–3.58, <i>P</i> = 0.019), and AIS with concurrent HSIL (aOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.13–3.78, <i>P</i> = 0.018) were independently associated with positive margins. Greater cone depth was associated with lower risk (per 1&#xa0;mm increase: aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.97, <i>P</i> = 0.031) when conization type was excluded due to collinearity. Among patients who underwent hysterectomy, positive conization margin was the only predictor of residual disease (aOR 9.12, 95% CI 1.07–77.8, <i>P</i> = 0.043). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed a significant difference in RFS among the three groups (<i>P</i> = 0.018), but pairwise comparison did not reveal a significant difference between the LEEP and CKC groups (<i>P</i> = 0.109).</p> Conclusions <p>In this retrospective cohort, CKC achieved lower positive margin rates than LEEP for AIS. However, short-term RFS did not differ significantly between the two techniques, suggesting that margin status alone may not fully predict oncologic outcomes. Positive margin was a predictor of residual disease at hysterectomy, but this finding requires validation. For fertility-seeking patients, CKC is preferred to optimize margins, though LEEP may be acceptable when CKC is not feasible.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision for cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: a retrospective cohort study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月16日

查看全文
  • Salamaiti Abudurehemu,
  • Xuanhui Wang,
  • Jue Wang,
  • Tianyu Liu,
  • Ming Chen

摘要

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of cold-knife conization (CKC) and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) in treating cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and identify relevant risk factors within a recent cohort from a tertiary hospital in China.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent a conization procedure with a preoperative or postoperative diagnosis of AIS of the cervix from January 2021 to July 2024. Clinicopathological data and follow-up results were collected, with recurrence-free survival (RFS) as the primary endpoint.

Results

Among the 251 patients included, 161 (64.14%) underwent LEEP and 90 (35.86%) underwent CKC as primary treatment. Overall, 29.9% (75/251) underwent eventual hysterectomy. Median follow-up was 36 months. The positive margin rate was lower in the CKC group than in the LEEP group (16.7% vs. 31.7%, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that LEEP (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.13–4.58, P = 0.021), TZ type 2 or 3 (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12–3.58, P = 0.019), and AIS with concurrent HSIL (aOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.13–3.78, P = 0.018) were independently associated with positive margins. Greater cone depth was associated with lower risk (per 1 mm increase: aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.97, P = 0.031) when conization type was excluded due to collinearity. Among patients who underwent hysterectomy, positive conization margin was the only predictor of residual disease (aOR 9.12, 95% CI 1.07–77.8, P = 0.043). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed a significant difference in RFS among the three groups (P = 0.018), but pairwise comparison did not reveal a significant difference between the LEEP and CKC groups (P = 0.109).

Conclusions

In this retrospective cohort, CKC achieved lower positive margin rates than LEEP for AIS. However, short-term RFS did not differ significantly between the two techniques, suggesting that margin status alone may not fully predict oncologic outcomes. Positive margin was a predictor of residual disease at hysterectomy, but this finding requires validation. For fertility-seeking patients, CKC is preferred to optimize margins, though LEEP may be acceptable when CKC is not feasible.