Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Simon Leeson - Colposcopic treatment standards

494 views

Published on

Leeson

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Simon Leeson - Colposcopic treatment standards

  1. 1. Colposcopic treatment standards Simon Leeson Consultant Gynaecologist and Oncologist Honorary Senior Lecturer Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board Canolfan Lawfeddygol Canser Gynaecolegol Gogledd Cymru North Wales Gynaecological Cancer Surgical Centre
  2. 2. Aims • To provide recommendations for the use of colposcopy to treat precancerous cervical lesions. • To provide recommendations for follow-up to assess effectiveness of treatment.
  3. 3. Objectives • To assess current standards for colposcopic treatment in Europe. • To evaluate short-term follow-up standards and any variation in context of national populations/ screening programmes. • Assess how agreed standards implemented/ measured. • Record improvements of care as consequence of quality measures.
  4. 4. Introduction • Need data for quality assurance. Data to be collected prospectively, validated/ be exchangeable. In order to allow comparison/ benchmarking with others, same data items need to be collected. • It follows that basic organisational issues essential for QA to occur include: agreed minimum database standardised data organisation of data collection/ exchange i.e. who is responsible for data collection collation/ analysis…
  5. 5. Introduction • Need data for quality assurance. Data to be collected prospectively, validated/ be exchangeable. In order to allow comparison/ benchmarking with others, same data items need to be collected. • It follows that basic organisational issues essential for QA to occur include: agreed minimum database standardised data organisation of data collection/ exchange i.e. who is responsible for data collection collation/ analysis…
  6. 6. In 2012 EFC agreed 6 quality measures by Delphi process1. • % excisional treatments/ conisations containing CIN2+ (85%) • % cases having a colposcopic examination prior to treatment for abnormal cervical cytology (100%) • % excised lesions/ conisations with clear margins (80%) • documentation of whether the squamocolumnar junction has been seen or not (100%) • number of colposcopies personally performed each year for a low- grade/ minor abnormality on cervical cytology (>50) • number of colposcopies personally performed each year for a high- grade/ major abnormality on cervical cytology (>50). 1Moss et al. 2013
  7. 7. Previously published data • Audit of all invasive cervical cancer cases in Sweden 1999–2001 <67yr/ prev abnormal cytology in prior 0.5–6.5yrs (n=143 cases) as population-based case control study (Silfverdal et al. 2011). Histology taken from 55 cases of which 24 treated. Ablative therapy increased OR compared with excisional (3.82; 1.01–14.4), laser conisation decreased OR compared with LLETZ (0.06; 0.01–0.36). • ‘This underlines the need of proficiency training of the clinician in surgical techniques as well as of careful follow-up after treatment. Larger studies are warranted to further evaluate the effectiveness of “see and treat”, LLETZ and ablative treatment in preventing invasive disease…’
  8. 8. • Population based cohort study (1958-2002) - women with previous CIN3 had increased risk invasive cervical cancer compared with general female population (standardised incidence ratio 2.34, 95% CI 2.18-2.50) but risk still increased after 25yrs. Risk accentuated in women aged >50 (Strander et al. 2007). • These 2 papers show volume of tissue removed/ excision of TZ appears to equate to risk of cancer. • ‘Data suggest an increased risk of invasive cancer after long term follow-up as treatment of CIN has become less radical over time’ (Strander and Adolfsson, 2014).
  9. 9. Brussels satellite meeting 6-7.11.15 Marc Arbyn - Excision margins • Whatever excisional treatment procedure, overall 23% median +ve margins. Meta-analysis of margin status for prediction of failure of treatment sens of 64%, spec of 84%, +ve PPV 22% for CIN2+. If -ve 3.2% (cNPV). RR 6.6 and so relevant QI. • Association between margin status/ treatment failure. Also association with excision/ pre-term labour. No paper looks at both obstetric/ cancer outcomes combined. • Strander et al, (2014) showed that compared to 1958-70 increase in treatment failure after 1970 with ‘excess RR’ of new cancer cases from 2001-8 (1.94 (CI 1.45-2.59)). Less hysterectomies/ cones +small loops may be to blame following concern on poor obstetric outcome.
  10. 10. • ‘It is worrying that Strander and colleagues found that women who received local treatment more recently were at greater risk of developing cervical/ vaginal cancer’ (Arbyn et al, 2014). • Summary: margin status could be used for quality of treatment but other QIs could be relevant.
  11. 11. • Loop length/ numbers of treatments, HPV testing, age could most accurately predict risk of failure but: for treatment length/ risk of preterm labour - if <10mm no risk of preterm delivery. If >10mm RR 2. Increasing excision length associated with significant increase in risk of preterm delivery, with estimated 6% increase in risk/ additional mm of tissue excised (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09). having had 2+ LLETZs increased risk almost x4 for subsequent preterm delivery compared with no LLETZ before delivery, and almost x2 risk compared with 1 LLETZ before delivery (Noehr et al, 2009). severity of cone histology/ time since LLETZ not associated with risk of preterm delivery. series of 3,426 LLETZ procedures, women aged >50 with CIN at margins of excision constituted minority high risk group. CIN3 extending to lateral/ deep margins should be offered retreatment rather than surveillance (Flannelly et al, 2001).
  12. 12. • Some treatments performed without colposcopy. In France, 76% not performed under colposcopic vision. Similar situation in Spain.
  13. 13. 1Bornstein et al. 2012
  14. 14. Loop length
  15. 15. Type 1 • Completely ectocervical • Fully visible • Small or large Transformation Zone Classification
  16. 16. Type 2 • Has endocervical component • Fully visible • May have ectocervical component, which may be small or large Transformation Zone Classification
  17. 17. Transformation Zone Classification Type 3 • Has endocervical component • Not fully visible • May have ectocervical component, which may be small or large
  18. 18. 8.4.3 Length of excision • goal of excision is to remove all abnormal epithelium. Type I cervical TZ: • for treating ectocervical lesions, excisional techniques should remove tissue to length of >7mm (95%), though aim should be to remove <10mm in women of reproductive age. Type II cervical TZ: • excisional techniques should remove tissue to length of 10-15mm, depending on position of SCJ within endocervical canal. Type III cervical TZ: • excisional techniques should remove tissue to length of 15-25mm.
  19. 19. Evidence Histological assessment of depth of crypt involvement by CIN3 has shown mean depth of 1-2mm with max. 5.22mm/ mean +3 SDs (99.7%) of 3.80mm. Incomplete excision, especially of endocervical margin, is important adverse factor for recurrence. In women <35, excisions >10mm in length not associated with improved recurrence rates. Increased risk of preterm delivery after LLETZ >10mm in length. In 1 study loop excisions >12mm in length associated with x3 increase in preterm delivery1, however, in recent nested case control study within NHSCSP, absolute risk of preterm delivery 8% for excisions 10- 14mm, rising to 18% for excisions >20mm in length2. 1Khalid et al. 2012 2Castanon et al. PaCT Study Group. 2014
  20. 20. QIs modified after discussion with delegates: • Women who undergo excisional treatments should have a definitive histology of CIN2+ (>85%). Definitive histology is the highest grade from any diagnostic or therapeutic biopsies. • A colposcopic examination should be performed prior to treatment for an abnormal cervical screening test (100%). • Colposcopy TZ type (1,2 or 3) should be documented (100%). But for further debate: • Excisional treatment specimens should have clear margins (80%) Consider which margin for margin status (ecto/ endo or both). EFC Brussels Nov, 2015
  21. 21. UK (%) Germany (%) Italy (%) % excisional treatments/ conisations containing CIN2+ (85%) % cases having a colposcopic examination prior to treatment for abnormal cervical cytology (100%) % excised lesions/ conisations with clear margins (80%) Documentation of whether the squamocolumnar junction has been seen or not (100%)
  22. 22. UK (%) Germany (%) Italy (%) % excisional treatments/ conisations containing CIN2+ (85%) 91 83 68 % cases having a colposcopic examination prior to treatment for abnormal cervical cytology (100%) 100 94 98 % excised lesions/ conisations with clear margins (80%) 25 73 Documentation of whether the squamocolumnar junction has been seen or not (100%) 93 95 99 >80% clear margins in excised lesions/conizations not considered useful by some German clinics and not documented.1 1Luyten et al, 2015
  23. 23. HPV test of cure (ToC) • Meta-analysis of 5 studies including 1032 women treated by excision of CIN2/3 • Sensitivity for HCII to detect CIN2+ 90.7% vs. 76.6% for cytology (threshold ASCUS) • Specificity of 74.6% vs. 89.7% (Chan et al, 2009) • Incidence recurrent CIN2+ 6.6% ~15-23% increase in detection recurrent HG-CIN (Arbyn et al, 2006) • Benefit of –ve HPV test is rapid return to 3yrly recall.
  24. 24. Algorithm for Test of Cure Treatment 6 month follow up Cytology Cytology High grade dyskaryosis or worse Normal, borderline or low grade dyskaryosis Colposcopy HPV +ve HPV –ve Approx 14-28% of all treatments Treat, or if N (following ToC) 3 year recall for 3 year recall 2.9% CIN2+ @ 3 years* *Kitchener et al, 2008
  25. 25. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes February, 2015 Test +ve rate 12.9% PPV HPV testing 33.3% PPV cytology 58.4%
  26. 26. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes February, 2015 HPV referral rate 4.3% Cytology referral rate 4.1%
  27. 27. HPV test +ve for >25 yrs 16/18 or cytology +ve 16/18 or cytology -ve HPV test @ 12 months Post vaccinated era 3 year recall HPV +ve and reflex cytology HPV -ve Margin status – endo/ ecto/ lateral Excision length If treatment for CIN
  28. 28. HPV test +ve for >25 yrs 16/18 or cytology +ve 16/18 or cytology -ve HPV test @ 12 months Post vaccinated era 3 year recall HPV +ve and reflex cytology HPV -ve Margin status – endo/ ecto/ lateral Excision length If treatment for CIN Modify loop length for TZ type
  29. 29. Conclusions • Decide if we need additional treatment standards despite Delphi. record conisation length (if treatment excisional) record if deep/lateral margin involved record HPV or cytology (threshold ASCUS) +ve rate at 6-8 months post treatment and record recurrent CIN2+ rate within 12/24 months of treatment. • Women who undergo excisional treatments should have a definitive histology of CIN2+ (>85%). Definitive histology is the highest grade from any diagnostic or therapeutic biopsies. • A colposcopic examination should be performed prior to treatment for abnormal cervical screening test (100%). • Colposcopy TZ type (1,2 or 3) should be documented (100%). • Excisional treatment specimens should have clear margins (80%).
  30. 30. The 2017 Annual Scientific Meeting of the BSCCP Save the Date! www.bsccpconference.co.uk Wednesday 3rd to Friday 5th May 2017 Cardiff City Football Stadium, Cardiff
  31. 31. Canolfan Lawfeddygol Canser Gynaecolegol Gogledd Cymru North Wales Gynaecological Cancer Surgical Centre

×