How many preterm births in England are due to excision of the cervical transformation zone? Nested case control study

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

P. Sasieni²  R. Landy²  Alejandra Castanon²  R. Wuntakal¹ 

[1] Guys and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, England, UK;Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, England, UK

关键词: Attributable risk;    LLETZ;    Cervical treatment;    Preterm birth;   

Others  :  1228401
DOI  :  10.1186/s12884-015-0664-3

 received in 2015-02-05, accepted in 2015-09-18,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Preterm births (as a proportion of all births) have been increasing in many countries. There is growing evidence of increased risk of preterm birth following excisional treatment of the cervix. We estimate the number of preterm births attributable to excisional treatments with a length of 10 mm or more in England.

Methods

Case–control study nested in a record linkage cohort of women with a histological sample at 13 hospitals in England. We combined observed age at first excisional treatment in our cohort with the weighted distribution of excision length from the case–control study to estimate the length distribution by age at first treatment among the cohort. The number of births after excision for each 5-year age group was estimated using national fertility data; published absolute risks of preterm (<37 gestational weeks) and very preterm birth (<32 weeks) were applied to these to estimate the number of preterm births per 100 women treated. Excess preterm births were estimated assuming all treatments were small. The attributable risk of preterm birth following excisional treatment in England was estimated.

Results

The majority of first excisional treatments at colposcopy were small (47.5 %) or medium (39.1 %), 9.5 % were large and 4.1 % were very large excisions. 4.0 % of women treated before birth had more than one excisional treatment. Thus based on our cohort of 10,711 treated women and the length of treatment observed in the case control study we estimate an excess of 240 preterm births (including 57 very preterm) or 2.2 (including 0.5 very preterm) per 100 women treated. At a population level (for England) we estimate that 39,101 women aged 20–39 would be treated each year and that these treatments will lead to an excess of 840 preterm births (including 196 very preterm) in England each year.

Conclusions

Assuming associations between preterm birth and treatment for cervical disease are causal; we estimate that an excess 840 (2.5 %) preterm birth in England each year are due to excisional treatments of 10 mm or more. Those that go on to become pregnant should be closely monitored during antenatal period to reduce their risk of preterm birth.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Wuntakal et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Albrechtsen S, Rasmussen S, Thoresen S, Irgens LM, Iversen OE. Pregnancy outcome in women before and after cervical conisation: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2008; 337:a1343.
• [2]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(17):2100-2106.
• [3]Noehr B, Jensen A, Frederiksen K, Tabor A, Kjaer SK. Depth of cervical cone removed by loop electrosurgical excision procedure and subsequent risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(6):1232-1238.
• [4]Noehr B, Jensen A, Frederiksen K, Tabor A, Kjaer SK. Loop electrosurgical excision of the cervix and subsequent risk for spontaneous preterm delivery: a population-based study of singleton deliveries during a 9-year period. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201(1):33.
• [5]Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch PL, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Obstetric Outcome after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006; 367:489-498.
• [6]Bruinsma FJ, Quinn MA. The risk of preterm birth following treatment for precancerous changes in the cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2011; 118(9):1031-1041.
• [7]Jakobsson M, Gissler M, Paavonen J, Tapper AM. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure and the risk for preterm birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(3):504-510.
• [8]Castanon A, Landy R, Brocklehurst P, Evans H, Peebles D, Singh N, Walker P, Patnick J, Sasieni P, Pa CTSG. Risk of preterm delivery with increasing depth of excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: nested case–control study. BMJ. 2014; 349:g6223.
• [9]Zeitlin J, Szamotulska K, Drewniak N, Mohangoo AD, Chalmers J, Sakkeus L, Irgens L, Gatt M, Gissler M, Blondel B et al.. Preterm birth time trends in Europe: a study of 19 countries. BJOG. 2013; 120(11):1356-1365.
• [10]Martin JA, Kirmeyer S, Osterman M, Shepherd RA. Born a bit too early: recent trends in late preterm births. NCHS Data Brief. 2009; 24:1-8.
• [11]What is HES? http://www. hscic.gov.uk/hes webcite
• [12]Castanon A, Brocklehurst P, Evans H, Peebles D, Singh N, Walker P, Patnick J, Sasieni P. Risk of preterm birth after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia among women attending colposcopy in England: retrospective-prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012; 345: Article ID e5174
• [13]Bornstein J, Bentley J, Bosze P, Girardi F, Haefner H, Menton M, Perrotta M, Prendiville W, Russell P, Sideri M et al.. 2011 colposcopic terminology of the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120(1):166-172.
• [14]Office for National Statistics: Age–specific fertility rates (ASFRs), constituent countries of the UK, 2010. In: Fertility Summary, 2010 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/fertility-analysis/fertility-summary/2010/uk-fertility-summary.html. 2010.
• [15]Castanon A, Landy R, Brocklehurst P, Evans H, Peebles D, Singh N, et al. Is the increased risk of preterm birth following excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia restricted to the first birth post treatment?. BJOG 2015;122:1191–1199.
• [16]Health and Social Care Information Centre: Cervical Screening Programme, England, Statistics for 2013–14. In., 25 November 2014 edn; 2014.
• [17]Landy R, Birke H, Castanon A, Sasieni P. Benefits and harms of cervical screening from age 20 years compared with screening from age 25 years. Br J Cancer. 2014; 110(7):1841-1846.
• [18]Office for National Statistics: Cancer Statistics Registrations, England (Series MB1) No 43, 2012. In., 19 June 2014 edn; 2014.
• [19]Simoens C, Goffin F, Simon P, Barlow P, Antoine J, Foidart JM, Arbyn M. Adverse obstetrical outcomes after treatment of precancerous cervical lesions: a Belgian multicentre study. BJOG. 2012; 119(10):1247-1255.
• [20]Foster C, Shennan AH. Fetal fibronectin as a biomarker of preterm labor: a review of the literature and advances in its clinical use. Biomark Med. 2014; 8(4):471-484.
• [21]Mangham LJ, Petrou S, Doyle LW, Draper ES, Marlow N. The cost of preterm birth throughout childhood in England and Wales. Pediatrics. 2009; 123(2):e312-327.