Fertility and early pregnancy outcomes after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Maria Kyrgiou, Anita Mitra, Marc Arbyn, Sofia Melina Stasinou, Pierre Martin-Hirsch, Phillip Bennett, Evangelos Paraskevaidis, Maria Kyrgiou, Anita Mitra, Marc Arbyn, Sofia Melina Stasinou, Pierre Martin-Hirsch, Phillip Bennett, Evangelos Paraskevaidis

Abstract

Objective: To determine the impact of cervical excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia on fertility and early pregnancy outcomes.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Data sources: Medline and Embase.

Eligibility criteria: Studies assessing fertility and early pregnancy outcomes in women with a history of treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia versus untreated women. We classified the included studies according to treatment type and fertility or early pregnancy endpoint.

Analysis: Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals using a random effect model, and interstudy heterogeneity with I(2) statistics.

Results: 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included. The meta-analysis did not provide any evidence that treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia adversely affected the chances of conception. The overall pregnancy rate was higher for treated women than for untreated women (four studies; 43% v 38%, pooled relative risk 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.64), although the heterogeneity between studies was high (P<0.0001). Pregnancy rates did not differ between women with an intention to conceive (two studies; 88% v 95%, 0.93, 0.80 to 1.08) and the number requiring more than 12 months to conceive (three studies, 15% v 9%, 1.45, 0.89 to 2.37). Although the rates for total miscarriages (10 studies; 4.6% v 2.8%, 1.04, 0.90 to 1.21) and miscarriage in the first trimester (four studies; 9.8% v 8.4%, 1.16, 0.80 to 1.69) was similar for treated and untreated women, cervical treatment was associated with a significantly increased risk of miscarriage in the second trimester. The rate was higher for treated women than for untreated women (eight studies; 1.6% v 0.4%, 16,558 women; 2.60, 1.45 to 4.67). The number of ectopic pregnancies (1.6% v 0.8%; 1.89, 1.50 to 2.39) and terminations (12.2% v 7.4%; 1.71, 1.31 to 2.22) was also higher for treated women.

Conclusion: There is no evidence suggesting that treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia adversely affects fertility, although treatment was associated with a significantly increased risk of miscarriages in the second trimester. Research should explore mechanisms that may explain this increase in risk and stratify the impact that treatment may have on fertility and early pregnancy outcomes by the size of excision and treatment method used.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

© Kyrgiou et al 2014.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793870/bin/kyrm021196.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 PRISMA flowchart
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793870/bin/kyrm021196.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Meta-analysis on overall pregnancy rates in treated versus untreated women. LLETZ=large loop excision of the transformation zone; LEEP=loop electrosurgical excisional procedure
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793870/bin/kyrm021196.f3_default.jpg
Fig 3 Meta-analysis on pregnancy rates in women with an intention to conceive, and time to conception greater than 12 months in treated versus untreated women. CKC=cold knife conisation; LLETZ=large loop excision of the transformation zone; LEEP=loop electrosurgical excisional procedure
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793870/bin/kyrm021196.f4_default.jpg
Fig 4 Forest plots from meta-analysis on rates for total miscarriage in treated versus untreated women. CKC=cold knife conisation; LLETZ=large loop excision of the transformation zone; LEEP=loop electrosurgical excisional procedure
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4793870/bin/kyrm021196.f5_default.jpg
Fig 5 Forest plots from the meta-analysis on rates for miscarriage in first and second trimesters in treated versus untreated women. CKC=cold knife conisation; LLETZ=large loop excision of the transformation zone; LEEP=loop electrosurgical excisional procedure

References

    1. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 1999;318:904-8.
    1. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006;367:489-98.
    1. Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, Raifu AO, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ 2008;337:a1284.
    1. Albrechtsen S, Rasmussen S, Thoresen S, Irgens LM, Iversen OE. Pregnancy outcome in women before and after cervical conisation: population based cohort study. BMJ 2008;337:a1343.
    1. Noehr B, Jensen A, Frederiksen K, Tabor A, Kjaer SK. Depth of cervical cone removed by loop electrosurgical excision procedure and subsequent risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. Obstetr Gynecol 2009;114:1232-8.
    1. Castanon A, Brocklehurst P, Evans H, Peebles D, Singh N, Walker P, et al. Risk of preterm birth after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia among women attending colposcopy in England: retrospective-prospective cohort study. BMJ 2012;345:e5174.
    1. Kyrgiou M, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Paraskevaidis E. Increased risk of preterm birth after treatment for CIN. BMJ 2012;345:e5847.
    1. Bruinsma F, Lumley J, Tan J, Quinn M. Precancerous changes in the cervix and risk of subsequent preterm birth. Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 2007;114:70-80.
    1. Paraskevaidis E, Kyrgiou M, Martin-Hirsch P. Have we dismissed ablative treatment too soon in colposcopy practice? Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 2007;114:3-4.
    1. Hammond RH, Edmonds DK. Does treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia affect fertility and pregnancy? BMJ 1990;301:1344-5.
    1. Kennedy S, Robinson J, Hallam N. LLETZ and infertility. Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 1993;100:965.
    1. Luesley DM, McCrum A, Terry PB, Wade-Evans T, Nicholson HO, Mylotte MJ, et al. Complications of cone biopsy related to the dimensions of the cone and the influence of prior colposcopic assessment. Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 1985;92:158-64.
    1. Bigrigg A, Haffenden DK, Sheehan AL, Codling BW, Read MD. Efficacy and safety of large-loop excision of the transformation zone. Lancet 1994;343:32-4.
    1. Weber T, Obel E. Pregnancy complications following conization of the uterine cervix (I). Acta Obstetr Gynecol Scand 1979;58:259-63.
    1. Kalliala I, Anttila A, Dyba T, Hakulinen T, Halttunen M, Nieminen P. Pregnancy incidence and outcome among patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 2012;119:227-35.
    1. Spracklen CN, Harland KK, Stegmann BJ, Saftlas AF. Cervical surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and prolonged time to conception of a live birth: a case-control study. Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 2013;120:960-5.
    1. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2010. .
    1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12.
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88.
    1. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10:101-29.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.
    1. Harbord RM, Harris RJ, Sterne JAC. Updated tests for small-study effects in meta-analyses. Stata J 2009;9:197-210.
    1. Blomfield PI, Buxton J, Dunn J, Luesley DM. Pregnancy outcome after large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone. Am J Obstetr Gynecol 1993;169:620-5.
    1. Buller RE, Jones HW, 3rd. Pregnancy following cervical conization. Am J Obstetr Gynecol 1982;142:506-12.
    1. Cruickshank ME, Flannelly G, Campbell DM, Kitchener HC. Fertility and pregnancy outcome following large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone. Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 1995;102:467-70.
    1. Frega A, Sesti F, De Sanctis L, Pacchiarotti A, Votano S, Biamonti A, et al. Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstetr 2013;122:145-9.
    1. Larsson G, Grundsell H, Gullberg B, Svennerud S. Outcome of pregnancy after conization. Acta Obstetr Gynecol Scand 1982;61:461-6.
    1. Sagot P, Caroit Y, Winer N, Lopes P, Boog G. Obstetrical prognosis for carbon dioxide laser conisation of the uterine cervix. Eur J Obstetr Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995;58:53-8.
    1. Sjoborg KD, Vistad I, Myhr SS, Svenningsen R, Herzog C, Kloster-Jensen A, et al. Pregnancy outcome after cervical cone excision: a case-control study. Acta Obstetr Gynecol Scand 2007;86:423-8.
    1. Spitzer M, Herman J, Krumholz BA, Lesser M. The fertility of women after cervical laser surgery. Obstetr Gynecol 1995;86(4 Pt 1):504-8.
    1. Tan L, Pepra E, Haloob RK. The outcome of pregnancy after large loop excision of the transformation zone of the cervix. J Obstetr Gynaecol 2004;24:25-7.
    1. Turlington WT, Wright BD, Powell JL. Impact of the loop electrosurgical excision procedure on future fertility. J Reprod Med 1996;41:815-8.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med 2009;3:e123-30.
    1. Jakobsson M, Gissler M, Sainio S, Paavonen J, Tapper AM. Preterm delivery after surgical treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstetr Gynecol 2007;109(2 Pt 1):309-13.
    1. Founta C, Arbyn M, Valasoulis G, Kyrgiou M, Tsili A, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Proportion of excision and cervical healing after large loop excision of the transformation zone for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 2010;117:1468-74.
    1. Khalid S, Dimitriou E, Conroy R, Paraskevaidis E, Kyrgiou M, Harrity C, et al. The thickness and volume of LLETZ specimens can predict the relative risk of pregnancy-related morbidity. Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 2012;119:685-91.
    1. Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Gondry J, Petry KU, Paraskevaidis E. Long term outcomes for women treated for cervical precancer. BMJ 2014;348:f7700.
    1. Kyrgiou M, Valasoulis G, Stasinou SM, Founta C, Athanasiou A, Bennett P, et al. Proportion of cervical excision for CIN as a predictor of pregnancy outcomes. Int J Gynaecol Obstetr 2014;(in press).
    1. Phadnis SV, Atilade A, Bowring J, Kyrgiou M, Young MP, Evans H, et al. Regeneration of cervix after excisional treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a study of collagen distribution. Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 2011;118:1585-91.
    1. Ravel J, Gajer P, Abdo Z, Schneider GM, Koenig SS, McCulle SL, et al. Vaginal microbiome of reproductive-age women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011;108(Suppl 1):4680-7.
    1. Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 2012;486:207-14.
    1. Holmes E, Kinross J, Gibson GR, Burcelin R, Jia W, Pettersson S, et al. Therapeutic modulation of microbiota-host metabolic interactions. Sci Transl Med 2012;4:137rv6.
    1. Holmes E, Li JV, Marchesi JR, Nicholson JK. Gut microbiota composition and activity in relation to host metabolic phenotype and disease risk. Cell Metab 2012;16:559-64.
    1. Nicholson JK, Holmes E, Kinross J, Burcelin R, Gibson G, Jia W, et al. Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions. Science 2012;336:1262-7.
    1. Li JV, Ashrafian H, Bueter M, Kinross J, Sands C, le Roux CW, et al. Metabolic surgery profoundly influences gut microbial-host metabolic cross-talk. Gut 2011;60:1214-23.
    1. Jimenez B, Mirnezami R, Kinross J, Cloarec O, Keun HC, Holmes E, et al. 1H HR-MAS NMR spectroscopy of tumor-induced local metabolic “field-effects” enables colorectal cancer staging and prognostication. J Proteome Res 2013;12:959-68.
    1. Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, Meijer CJ, Poljak M, Ogilvie G, et al. Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine 2012;30(Suppl 5):F88-99.
    1. Strander B, Hallgren J, Sparen P. Effect of ageing on cervical or vaginal cancer in Swedish women previously treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3: population based cohort study of long term incidence and mortality. BMJ 2014;348:f7361.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅