{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]],"date-time":"2026-10-21T14:29:10Z","timestamp":1792592950945,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":26,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2016,1,19]],"date-time":"2016-01-19T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1453161600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J of Obstet and Gynaecol"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,4]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Aim<\/jats:title><jats:p>The aim of this study was to identify predictors of recurrent\/residual disease for management after loop electrosurgical excisional procedure.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>We retrospectively reviewed 178 patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma who underwent the loop electrosurgical excisional procedure between<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">April<\/jats:styled-content>2011 and<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">March<\/jats:styled-content>2014. Endocervical\/ectocervical margin status, endocervical curettage (ECC) status, and maximum width of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia were assessed. Patients were followed up for 6\u201312 months.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>Patients with endocervical margin involvement were significantly older and those with ectocervical margin involvement were significantly younger than patients with no margin involvement (<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>= 0.02 for both comparisons). ECC\u2010positive patients were significantly older than ECC\u2010negative patients (<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>= 0.049). There was a significant difference in the mean width of the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia between women with ectocervical involvement and those without ecto\u2010 or endocervical involvement (10.2 \u00b1 3.1 mm vs 7.3 \u00b1 3.5 mm,<jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>= 0.0002). The odds ratios for possible recurrent\/residual disease for endocervical involvement, ectocervical involvement, and ECC\u2010positivity were 2.1 (0.5\u20138.4), 3.2 (1.3\u20137.9), and 6.8 (1.4\u201332.1), respectively. However, while most ECC\u2010positive patients underwent a second surgery, most patients with ectocervical involvement did not need further treatment.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title><jats:p>Older age and ECC were significantly associated with endocervical margin involvement; younger age and width of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia were associated with ectocervical margin involvement. Ectocervical margin involvement significantly increased the risk of possible recurrent\/residual disease; however, these patients might recover naturally. ECC\u2010positivity significantly increased the risk of recurrent\/residual disease.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1111\/jog.12929","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,1,20]],"date-time":"2016-01-20T02:38:41Z","timestamp":1453257521000},"page":"457-463","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":15,"title":["Predictors of recurrent\/residual disease after loop electrosurgical excisional procedure"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"42","author":[{"given":"Kenro","family":"Chikazawa","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Jichi Medical University, Saitama Medical Center Saitama Japan"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sachiho","family":"Netsu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Jichi Medical University, Saitama Medical Center Saitama Japan"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Shigeru","family":"Motomatsu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Gynecology Kyosai Hospital Saitama Japan"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ryo","family":"Konno","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Jichi Medical University, Saitama Medical Center Saitama Japan"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2016,1,19]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_5_2_1","volume-title":"WHO guidelines for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2\u20133 and adenocarcinoma in situ: Cryotherapy, large loop excision of the transformation zone, and cold knife conization","author":"World Health Organization","year":"2014"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1006\/gyno.1994.1189"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1006\/gyno.1998.5300"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0002-9378(99)70200-0"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0301-2115(02)00245-2"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD001318.pub3"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00004347-199304000-00018"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(95)90253-8"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0029-7844(96)00505-4"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1006\/gyno.2000.5949"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000206777.28541.fc"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_13_1","first-page":"113","article-title":"Predictive factors used to justify hysterectomy after loop conization: Increasing age and severity of disease","volume":"18","author":"Kalogirou D","year":"1997","journal-title":"Eur J Gynaecol Oncol"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1447-0756.2008.00834.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/978-1-4419-0489-8"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1006\/gyno.1997.4817"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1006\/gyno.1993.1116"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_18_1","first-page":"33","article-title":"Cold knife conization vs LEEP. Are they the same procedure?","volume":"47","author":"Fanning J","year":"2002","journal-title":"J Reprod Med"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"367","DOI":"10.3760\/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2009.04.002","article-title":"Predictors and clinical significance of the positive cone margin in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III patients","volume":"122","author":"Sun XG","year":"2009","journal-title":"Chin Med J (Engl)"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_20_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00006250-200202000-00004"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_21_1","first-page":"233","article-title":"Predictors of recurrent dysplasia after a cervical loop electrocautery excision procedure for CIN\u20103: A study of margin, endocervical gland, and quadrant involvement","volume":"12","author":"Livasy CA","year":"1999","journal-title":"Mod Pathol"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_22_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1159\/000332695"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.anndiagpath.2007.01.012"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1006\/gyno.2001.6579"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_25_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0029-7844(98)00144-6"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_26_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000114983.11562.08"},{"key":"e_1_2_5_27_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2004.12.044"}],"container-title":["Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fjog.12929","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fjog.12929","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/jog.12929","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,6,13]],"date-time":"2024-06-13T21:52:26Z","timestamp":1718315546000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/jog.12929"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2016,1,19]]},"references-count":26,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,4]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/jog.12929"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jog.12929","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["1341-8076","1447-0756"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1341-8076","type":"print"},{"value":"1447-0756","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2016,1,19]]}}}