Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2019; 79(02): 189-197
DOI: 10.1055/a-0828-7831
GebFra Science
Original Article/Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Treatment of Cervical Dysplasia by Clinicians Who Perform Colposcopy in German-speaking Countries – a Questionnaire-based Study

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Ziad Hilal
1   ZYDOLAB, Institut für klinische Zytologie und Immunzytochemie, Dortmund, Germany
,
Clemens B. Tempfer
2   Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Marien Hospital Herne, Universitätsklinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Herne, Germany
,
Günther A. Rezniczek
2   Klinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Marien Hospital Herne, Universitätsklinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Herne, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 25 September 2018
revised 01 January 2019

accepted 03 January 2019

Publication Date:
18 February 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction In connection with the reorganisation of cervical carcinoma screening, the importance of colposcopy as an integral part of the planned series of clarification testing will greatly increase. Quality standards for performing the colposcopic examination should therefore be defined in detail. A precondition for this is surveying the current standard in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the current practice of colposcopy and conisation in Germany by means of a questionnaire aimed at gynaecologists who perform colposcopies in order to document the actual therapeutic standard of treatment of cervical dysplasia.

Materials and Methods Gynaecologists were invited via e-mail or during events to participate in a web-based survey. The questionnaire contained 38 questions on management before, during and after the examination as well as questions on the technical implementation of colposcopy and conisation.

Results From February 2018 to April 2018, 961 e-mails were sent. A response was received in 197 cases (response rate 20.5%). Responses were received for another 40 questionnaires during events (response rate approx. 80%). After taking the inclusion criteria into account, 160 questionnaires were evaluated. The majority of those surveyed take an average of 2 cervical biopsies (67.3%) and nearly all of those surveyed (94.5%) do not use any local anaesthetic. As a standard method for removing cervical precancerous cells, most of the physicians surveyed perform a loop excision with the electrosurgical loop (91.2%) under colposcopic visualisation (61.2%) under general anaesthesia (92.5%). Postoperative bleeding prophylaxis by means of tamponade is performed only in 27.6% of all cases.

Conclusion A differential colposcopy with two colposcopically targeted biopsies and treatment with the electrosurgical loop are the methods most frequently used by clinicians who perform colposcopy in Germany. A uniform procedure should be defined in detail within the scope of directives or guidelines.

Key words

CIN - colposcopy - conisation - management - screening - cervical dysplasia - cervical carcinoma
 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: E359-E386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Robert Koch-Institut. Krebs in Deutschland 2013/2014. 11. Ausgabe. Berlin: RKI; 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Pressemitteilung 39. Früherkennung von Gebärmutterhalskrebs künftig als organisiertes Programm. 2018. Online: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/34-215-774/39_2018-11-22_oKFE_Zervix.pdf last access: 23.11.2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie. S3-Leitlinie Prävention des Zervixkarzinoms. 2017. Online: https://www.leitlinienprogrammonkologie.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Leitlinien/Zervixkarzinom_Praeventin/LL_Prävention_des_Zervixkarzinoms_Langversion_1.0.pdf last access: 24.07.2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Moss EL, Arbyn M, Dollery E. et al. European Federation of Colposcopy quality standards Delphi consultation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 170: 255-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Beckmann MW, Quaas J, Bischofberger A. et al. Aufbau des Zertifizierungssystems „Gynäkologische Dysplasie“ in Deutschland. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2014; 74: 860-867
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wentzensen N, Massad LS, Mayeaux EJ. et al. Evidence-Based Consensus Recommendations for Colposcopy Practice for Cervical Cancer Prevention in the United States. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2017; 21: 216-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Waxman AG, Conageski C, Silver MI. et al. ASCCP Colposcopy Standards: How Do We Perform Colposcopy? Implications for Establishing Standards. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2017; 21: 235-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Colposcopy and Programme Management. Third Edition. 2016. Online: https://www.bsccp.org.uk/assets/file/uploads/resources/NHSCSP_20_Colposopy_and_Programme_Management_(3rd_Edition)_(2).pdf last access: 26.07.2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R. et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42: 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hancke K, Igl W, Toth B. et al. Work-life balance of German gynecologists: a web-based survey on satisfaction with work and private life. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 289: 123-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Byrom J, Clarke T, Neale J. et al. Can pre-colposcopy sessions reduce anxiety at the time of colposcopy? A prospective randomised study. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 22: 415-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chan YM, Lee PH, Ng TY. et al. Could precolposcopy information and counseling reduce womenʼs anxiety and improve knowledge and compliance to follow-up?. Gynecol Oncol 2004; 95: 341-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Howells RE, Dunn PD, Isasi T. et al. Is the provision of information leaflets before colposcopy beneficial? A prospective randomised study. BJOG 1999; 106: 528-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Marteau TM, Kidd J, Cuddeford L. Reducing anxiety in women referred for colposcopy using an information leaflet. British Journal of Health Psychology 1996; 1: 181-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kavanagh AM, Broom DH. Womenʼs understanding of abnormal smear test results: a quantitative interview study. BMJ 1997; 314: 1388-1391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kola S, Walsh JC. Determinants of pre-procedural state anxiety and negative affect in first-time colposcopy patients: implications for intervention. Eur J Cancer Care 2012; 21: 469-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rogstad KE. The psychological impact of abnormal cytology and colposcopy. BJOG 2002; 109: 364-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sharp L, Cotton S, Little J. et al. Psychosocial impact of alternative management policies for low-grade cervical abnormalities: results from the TOMBOLA randomised controlled trial. PLoS One 2013; 8: e80092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hilal Z, Alici F, Tempfer CB. et al. Video Colposcopy for Reducing Patient Anxiety During Colposcopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130: 411-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Petry KU, Luyten A, Scherbring S. Accuracy of colposcopy management to detect CIN3 and invasive cancer in women with abnormal screening tests: results from a primary HPV screening project from 2006 to 2011 in Wolfsburg, Germany. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 128: 282-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Van der Marel J, van Baars R, Rodriguez A. et al. The increased detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia when using a second biopsy at colposcopy. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 135: 201-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wentzensen N, Walker JL, Gold MA. et al. Multiple biopsies and detection of cervical cancer precursors at colposcopy. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 83-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schmid BC, Pils S, Heinze G. et al. Forced coughing versus local anesthesia and pain associated with cervical biopsy: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 641-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hilal Z, Rezniczek GA, Tettenborn Z. et al. Efficacy of Monsel Solution After Cervical Biopsy: A Randomized Trial. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2016; 20: 312-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK. et al. 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 21: 829-846
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ghaem-Maghami S, Sagi S, Majeed G. et al. Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 985-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kyrgiou M, Athanasiou A, Paraskevaidi M. et al. Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016; 354: 3633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Stasinou SM, Valasoulis G, Kyrgiou M. et al. Large loop excision of the transformation zone and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a 22-year experience. Anticancer Res 2012; 32: 4141-4145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Bornstein J, Bentley J, Bösze P. et al. 2011 colposcopic terminology of the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 166-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Martin-Hirsch PP, Paraskevaidis E, Bryant A. et al. Surgery for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (12) 1318
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hilal Z, Rezniczek GA, El-Fizazi N. et al. Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone Versus True Cone Biopsy Electrode Excision: A Randomized Trial. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2017; 21: 272-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Jiang YM, Chen CX, Li L. Meta-analysis of cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision procedure for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Onco Targets Ther 2016; 9: 3907-3915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C. et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ 2018; 337: a1284
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hilal Z, Rezniczek GA, Alici F. et al. Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP) with or without Intraoperative Colposcopy: A Randomized Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.07.023.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Schwarz TM, Kolben T, Gallwas J. et al. Comparison of two surgical methods for the treatment of CIN: classical LLETZ (large-loop excision of the transformation zone) versus isolated resection of the colposcopic apparent lesion – study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2015; 16: 225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hilal Z, Mavrommati G, Foerster C. et al. Spray Versus Forced Coagulation in Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone: A Randomized Trial. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2016; 20: 169-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar