Adherence to follow-up and outcome of lesions in women with grade 1 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35509/01239015.211Keywords:
Loss to Follow-Up, Colposcopy, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Uterine CervixAbstract
Objective: To determine adherence to follow-up and outcome of lesions in women diagnosed with grade 1 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 1).
Methodology: The study included non-pregnant women aged 18 or older, referred for colposcopy, with a colposcopy directed biopsy diagnosis of CIN 1, with no history of prior CIN, hysterectomy or cervical ablative therapy. Participants answered a questionnaire on risk factors, and the outcome of previous cytology and colposcopy was documented. All women should have been followed up for 1 year with cytology and colposcopy every six months. Those who did not have cytology and colposcopy / colposcopy assessments or documented treatments after 15 months were considered as non-adherent.
Results: A total of 40 patients with CIN 1 were included. The loss to follow-up rate of loss was 17/40 (42.5%). The demographic and clinical variables most frequently associated with non-adherence to follow-up were null parity and early initiation of sexual intercourse. The progression of low-grade to high-grade lesion was observed in 4.3%. 22.5% failed Conservative treatment failed conservative treatment and moved to invasive therapy.
Conclusion: The rate of loss to follow-up was high, with a considerable referral from conservative to invasive therapy. A large percentage of patients had regression of CIN 1. This study should help clarify the optimal strategies for the treatment of women with low-grade cervical abnormalities in populations of low sociocultural conditions and high risk of cervical cancer.
Author Biographies
Lía Barrios, Universidad de Cartagena
Departamento de Ciencias Básicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Cartagena, Grupo de investigación Histopatología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia
Eliana Retamoso, Clínica Maternidad Rafael Calvo de Cartagena E.S.E.
Unidad de Patología Cervical y Colposcopia, Clínica Maternidad Rafael Calvo de Cartagena E.S.E., Cartagena de Indias, Colombia
Luis Reinaldo Alvis, Universidad de Cartagena
Facultad de Enfermería, Universidad de Cartagena, Grupo de investigación Histopatología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia
References
Benedet JL, Anderson GH, Matisic JP. A comprehensive program for cervical cancer detection and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:1254-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(11)90618-8
Khanna N, Phillips MD. Adherence to care plan in women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears: a review of barriers and interventions. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14:123-30.
Sung HY, Kearney KA, Miller M, Kinney W, Sawaya GF, Hiatt RA. Papanicolaou smear history and diagnosis of invasive cervical carcinoma among members of a large prepaid health plan. Cancer. 2000;88:2283-9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000515)88:10<2283::AID-CNCR12>3.0.CO;2-D
World Health Organization. Adherence to long-term therapies: evidence for action. Switzerland. 2003.
Bansal N, Wright JD, Cohen CJ, Herzog TJ. Natural history of established low grade cervical intraepithelial (CIN 1) lesions. Anticancer Res. 2008;28(3B):1763-6.
Heatley MK. The prognosis in cervical epithelial changes of uncertain significance is similar to that of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54:474-5.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.54.6.474
Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Willan AR, Chan BK, Howell LP. Natural history of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a metaanalysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92 4 Pt 2:727-35.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-199810001-00046
Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1993;12:186-92.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00004347-199304000-00018
Walker JL, Wang SS, Schiffman M, Solomon D, Group ALTS. Predicting absolute risk of CIN3 during post-colposcopic follow-up: results from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:341-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.02.047
Crane JM. Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102 5 Pt 1:1058-62.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200311000-00031
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68181-6
Martin-Hirsch PL, Paraskevaidis E, Kitchener H. Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2000:CD001318.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001318
Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W, Exeter M, Whittaker J, McCowan L. Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. Jama. 2004;291:2100-6.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.17.2100
Samson SL, Bentley JR, Fahey TJ, McKay DJ, Gill GH. The effect of loop electrosurgical excision procedure on future pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:325-32.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000151991.09124.bb
Barken SS, Lynge E, Andersen ES, Rebolj M. Long-term adherence to follow-up after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: nationwide population-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:852-7.
https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12116
Elit L, Levine MN, Julian JA, Sellors JW, Lytwyn A, Chong S, et al. Expectant management versus immediate treatment for low-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomized trial in Canada and Brazil. Cancer. 2011;117:1438-45.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25635
Hartz LE, Fenaughty AM. Management choice and adherence to follow-up after colposcopy in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:674-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01526-5
Quinlivan JA, Petersen RW, Gani L, Tan J. Demographic variables routinely collected at colposcopic examination do not predict who will default from conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45:48-51.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00353.x
Rattanalappaiboon D, Kietpeerakool C, Kleebkaow P, Chumworathayi B, Launratanakorn S, Santipongsupakorn T. Factors affecting compliance in the first year of postcolposcopy surveillance among women with a high incidence of cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;124:160-3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.07.026
Yoost JL, Goetzl L, Hoda R, Soper DE, Barry A. Management of the low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion Pap smear in a cross-sectional, observational cohort. J Reprod Med. 2009;54:421-4.
Poomtavorn Y, Suwannarurk K, Thaweekul Y, Maireang K. Cervical cytologic abnormalities of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 treated with cryotherapy and expectant management during the first year follow-up period. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2009;10:665-8.
Dunn TS, Charnsangavej C, Wolf D. Are there predictors for failed expectant management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1? J Reprod Med. 2008;53:213-6.
Hernández F, Ornelas L, Apresa T, Sánchez S, Martínez O, Hernández D. Motivos de abandono en el proceso de atención médica de lesiones precursoras de cáncer de cervicouterino. Rev Invest Clín. 2006;58:217-27.
Eggleston KS, Coker AL, Luchok KJ, Meyer TE. Adherence to recommendations for follow-up to abnormal Pap tests. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1332-41.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000266396.25244.68
Ell K, Vourlekis B, Muderspach L, Nissly J, Padgett D, Pineda D, et al. Abnormal cervical screen follow-up among low-income Latinas: Project SAFe. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2002;11:639-51.
https://doi.org/10.1089/152460902760360586
Paskett ED, White E, Carter WB, Chu J. Improving follow-up after an abnormal Pap smear: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 1990;19:630-41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-7435(90)90060-W
NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. Colposcopy and Programme Management. Guidelines for the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2010.
Forero A, Fajardo L, Farfan A. Manejo de la lesión cervical intraepitelial de bajo grado en un hospital de II Nivel de Bogotá entre octubre de 2003 y junio de 2009. Bogotá: Universidad del Rosario, Universidad CES, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Hospital Engativa ESE II nivel, 2010 Enero. Report No.
Bornstein J, Bahat Sterensus H. Predictive factors for noncompliance with follow-up among women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004;58:202-6.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000080029
Massad LS, Meyer PM. Predicting compliance with followup recommendations after colposcopy among indigent urban women. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:371-6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00297-5
Eger RR, Peipert JF. Risk factors for noncompliance in a colposcopy clinic. J Reprod Med. 1996;41:671-4.
Engelstad LP, Stewart SL, Nguyen BH, Bedeian KL, Rubin MM, Pasick RJ, et al. Abnormal Pap smear follow-up in a high-risk population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10:1015-20.
Kaplan CP, Bastani R, Belin TR, Marcus A, Nasseri K, Hu MY. Improving follow-up after an abnormal pap smear: results from a quasi-experimental intervention study. JWomens Health Gend Based Med. 2000;9:779-90.
https://doi.org/10.1089/15246090050147754
Hernández D, Ornelas L, Apresa T, Sánchez S, Martínez O. Incumplimiento en tamizaje para cáncer de cervical. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2007;45:313-20.
Alvarado D, Mantilla D, Gonzalez M. Lesión intraepitelial de bajo grado en endocérvix: conducta. Rev Obstet Ginecol Venez. 2009;69:41-7.
Lerman C, Hanjani P, Caputo C, Miller S, Delmoor E, Nolte S, et al. Telephone counseling improves adherence to colposcopy among lower-income minority women. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:330-3.
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Todos los derechos reservados.
