Cervical Treatment Associated with Adverse Obstetric Outcomes


Am Fam Physician. 2016 Dec 1;94(11):933a-936.

Clinical Question

Is cervical treatment for preinvasive and early invasive disease associated with subsequent adverse obstetric outcomes?

Bottom Line

Cervical treatments for dysplasia and early cervical carcinoma are associated with subsequent risk of preterm birth. Excisional treatments carry higher risk than ablative treatments, and multiple treatments carry higher risk than single treatments. The frequency and severity of prematurity-related outcomes increase with increasing cone depth and volume. (Level of Evidence = 2a)


This report is a meta-analysis of observational studies to assess the associations between local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or early invasive carcinoma and subsequent obstetric outcomes. The authors included 71 studies (70 cohort, one case-control) with 65,082 treated women and 6,292,563 untreated women. Several types of untreated comparison groups were used, including a small subset in which women with high-grade lesions were not treated. The overall risk of premature birth (before 37 weeks' gestation) was higher among treated women than among untreated women (relative risk [RR] = 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60 to 1.98). It was also higher for severe prematurity (32 to 34 weeks' gestation) and extreme prematurity (28 to 30 weeks' gestation), with RRs of 2.40 (95% CI, 1.92 to 2.99) and 2.54 (95% CI, 1.77 to 3.63), respectively.

The magnitude of effect was higher for excision over ablative treatments (e.g., the RR of prematurity was 2.7 [95% CI, 2.14 to 3.40] with cold knife conization and 1.46 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.66] for ablation not otherwise specified). Within excisional treatments, the magnitude of effect was greater with greater depth of cone (up to RR of 4.91 for 20 mm or more) and greater volume of excision (up to RR of 13.9 for 6 mL or more). Multiple treatments were associated with progressively greater risk (e.g., the RR for two excisional treatments was 5.48; 95% CI, 2.68 to 11.24). Subgroup analyses were p

POEMs (patient-oriented evidence that matters) are provided by EssentialEvidence Plus, a point-of-care clinical decision support system published by Wiley-Blackwell. For more information, please see http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com. Copyright Wiley-Blackwell. Used with permission.

For definitions of levels of evidence used in POEMs, see http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/product/ebm_loe.cfm?show=oxford.

To subscribe to a free podcast of these and other POEMs that appear in AFP, search in iTunes for “POEM of the Week” or go to http://goo.gl/3niWXb.

This series is coordinated by Sumi Sexton, MD, Associate Deputy Editor.

A collection of POEMs published in AFP is available at https://www.aafp.org/afp/poems.



Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions

CME Quiz

More in AFP

Editor's Collections

Related Content

More in Pubmed


Dec 1, 2017

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue

Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article