{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,2]],"date-time":"2026-06-02T08:40:02Z","timestamp":1780389602569,"version":"3.54.1"},"reference-count":15,"publisher":"S. Karger AG","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2012,12,28]],"date-time":"2012-12-28T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1356652800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Services\/SiteLicenses"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2012,12,28]],"date-time":"2012-12-28T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1356652800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Services\/SiteLicenses"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Gynecol Obstet Invest"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013]]},"abstract":"<b><i>Aims:<\/i><\/b> To determine appropriate cone dimensions for predicting margin status after large loop excision of transformation zone (LLETZ) treatment. <b><i>Methods:<\/i><\/b> An observational study performed at the Colposcopy Unit of a university hospital setting involving patients who underwent LLETZ conisation within a 1-year period. Data concerning the characteristics, cone dimensions, lesion grade and excision margins of the patients were recorded. <b><i>Results:<\/i><\/b> The median age of the women (n = 61) was 38 years (18-53). LLETZ cone specimens had 36.1% of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2\/3 lesion and 13.1% positive margins. Mean cone depth and volume were 10.9 mm and 2.3 cm<sup>3<\/sup>, respectively. Multiple logistic regression for main predictors and after adjustment for age, parity and CIN severity showed that cone volume and length, cone base surface and proportion of excised volume had a significant effect on margin positivity. ROC analysis showed that optimal cut-off for cone volume was 2.1 cm<sup>3<\/sup> (87.5% sensitivity - 54.7% specificity) or 8.6% of initial cervical volume (75% sensitivity - 75.5% specificity), and for cone length it was 10 mm (100% sensitivity - 52.8% specificity). Optimal cut-off for cone base surface as percentage of ectocervical surface was 32.7% (75% sensitivity - 69.8% specificity). <b><i>Conclusions:<\/i><\/b> These findings should be taken into consideration when planning the outer boundaries of excision and cervical tissue to be removed so as to achieve oncologically safe limits.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1159\/000345864","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2012,12,27]],"date-time":"2012-12-27T08:00:59Z","timestamp":1356595259000},"page":"163-168","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":31,"title":["Appropriate Cone Dimensions to Achieve Negative Excision Margins after Large Loop Excision of Transformation Zone in the Uterine Cervix for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia"],"prefix":"10.1159","volume":"75","author":[{"given":"Dimitrios","family":"Papoutsis","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Alexandros","family":"Rodolakis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Spiridon","family":"Mesogitis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Maria","family":"Sotiropoulou","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Aris","family":"Antsaklis","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"127","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2012,12,28]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1995.tb11359.x"},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03380.x"},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(06)68181-6"},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/uog.61"},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1365-2559.1978.tb01701.x"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1046\/j.1469-0705.1996.07060429.x"},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S1470-2045(07)70283-8"},{"key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/PGP.0b013e31823ef970"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2011.02929.x"},{"key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1365-2303.2008.00636.x"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.a1284"},{"key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181bf1ef2"},{"key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2010.02709.x"},{"key":"ref14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.2012.03275.x"},{"key":"ref15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1159\/000333438"}],"container-title":["Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/345864","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/345864","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/345864","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,23]],"date-time":"2025-04-23T18:39:54Z","timestamp":1745433594000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/article\/doi\/10.1159\/000345864"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2012,12,28]]},"references-count":15,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2013,4,1]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013,4,17]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000345864","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0378-7346","1423-002X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0378-7346","type":"print"},{"value":"1423-002X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2012,12,28]]}}}