IMR Press / EJGO / Volume 42 / Issue 5 / DOI: 10.31083/j.ejgo4205157
Open Access Systematic Review
Development of evidence-based guidelines for follow up of women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN2/3) in Italian screening programmes
Show Less
1 Epidemiology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy
2 Screening and Secondary prevention Unit, Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention and Clinical Network, 50139 Florence, Italy
3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Via Aldo Moro, 8, 44124 Cona, Ferrara, Italy

§The following are members of the GISCi working group on follow up after treatment: Anna Iossa and Giovanni Maina Coordinators, Karin Louise Andersson, Riccardo Anselmi, Angelo Baldoni, Fausto Boselli, Cinzia Campari, Francesca Maria Carozzi, Luciano Cianferoni, Silvano Costa, Paolo Cristiani, Annarosa Del Mistro, Gian Piero Fantin, Concetta Fumia, Paola Garutti, Paolo Giorgi Rossi, Fabio Landoni, Lisa Lelli, Tiziano Maggino, Daria Minucci, Luciano Mariani , Giovanna Piazzesi, Patrizio Raggi, Raffaella Ribaldone, Maria Teresa Sandri, Noemi Spolti, Barbara Torrini, Maria Grazia Troncone, Mariaconcetta Tufi, Francesco Venturelli, Simona Venturoli, Carmen Beatriz Visioli.

Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 2021 , 42(5), 1079–1092;
Submitted: 26 April 2021 | Revised: 27 June 2021 | Accepted: 29 June 2021 | Published: 15 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Update on Cervical Cancer Prevention and Screening)

Background: The Italian Group for Cervical Cancer Screening (GISCi) promoted the update of recommendations for post Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN2/3) treatment follow up. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel including all the professionals involved in cervical cancer screening and CIN treatment was set up. Systematic reviews have been conducted searching in PubMed. The GRADEpro online tool was used for: defining and prioritizing clinical questions framed in PICOs (Population Intervention Comparator Outcomes); defining and scoring outcomes as critical, important or not important; synthetizing results of the systematic reviews in Evidence to Decision tables and to grade recommendations. Results: A systematic review identified the main prognostic factors, but these have almost no impact in HPV-negative women. Six questions were prioritized for the first phase: 3 about the test (Pap, HPV-DNA or Pap + HPV co-testing or co-testing + colposcopy); 1 about the number of episodes before returning to screening; 2 about the timing of episodes. For the test accuracy direct evidence was available, while for other questions mostly indirect evidence was retrieved in systematic reviews. Conclusions: The panel recommends HPV test or co-testing (conditional either the two), but not Pap test as follow up test (strong). Colposcopy can be added to assess surgical outcomes (conditional either yes or not). Two episodes instead of one, before referring women to regular screening, should be preferred (conditional). The first episode should be 6 months (vs. 12) after treatment (strong), in order to avoid progression of undiagnosed prevalent invasive cancers; the interval between first and second episode may be either 6 or 12 months (conditional).

Cervical cancer
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or grade 3
Post-treatment follow up
Test of cure
Human papillomavirus
Evidence-based medicine
Fig. 1.
Back to top