Significance of positive excision margins in therapy of high-grade vulvar precancerosis – analysis of own data and literary review

Czech version

Authors: Daniel Driák ¹ ; M. Pluta ¹ ; M. Hricko ¹; K. Hurt ²
Authors‘ workplace: Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 2. LF UK a FN Motol a Homolka, Praha ¹; Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a FN Bulovka, Praha ²
Published in: Ceska Gynekol 2026; 91(1): 16-20
Category: Original Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/cccg202616

Overview

Objective: In many countries, the incidence of vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia as a precursor of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma has highly increased over the last 3 decades, while the incidence of cancer remained relatively unchanged. Among risk factors for recurrence, resp. progression, usually involve positive excision margins. The aim of the paper is to evaluate the risk of recurrence and progression of high-grade vulvar precancerosis in patients with histological margins “non in sano” –⁠ analysis of our own data. Materials and methods: The retrospective study included 62 women after surgical resection of high-grade vulvar precancerosis with histological results of positive excision margins. Using the PubMed database, the results were compared with literary data. Results: Total of 35 (56.5%) patients underwent repeated surgery on the vulva. Inhalf of them (18–51.4%), histological results showed recurrence at the same stage, and in the second half of the women, no dysplastic changes were detected. There was no progression to invasive cancer in any of the patients. Conclusion: Beyond positive excision margins, the other predictive factors seem to be even more important for recurrence or progression of vulvar precancerosis including age, smoking, immunosuppression, radiotherapy, concomitant lesions in the vagina or cervix, and bioactivity of the human papilloma-virus. Instead of repeated resection to reach histological negative margins, we prefer the long-time, resp. long-life dispensarisation.

Keywords:

recurrence – progression – vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia – positive excision margins – vulvar squamous cell carcinoma

Sources

1. Del Pino M, Rodriguez-Carunchio L, Ordi J. Pathways of vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia and squamous cell carcinoma. Histopathology 2013; 62 (1): 161–175. doi: 10.1111/his. 12034.

2. Judson PL, Habermann EB, Baxter NN et al. Trends in the incidence of invasive and in situ vulvar carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107 (5): 1018–1022. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000210268. 57527.a1.

3. Jenkins T, Mills AM. Putative precancerous lesions of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Semin Diagn Pathol 2021; 38 (1): 27–36. doi: 10.1053/ j.semdp.2020.09.006.

4. Singh N, Gilks CB. Vulval squamous cell carcinoma and its precursors. Histopathology 2020; 76 (1): 128–138. doi: 10.1111/his.13989.

5. Škapa P. Dlaždicobuněčný karcinom vulvy. Onkologie 2019; 13 (1): 30–36. doi: 10.36290/ xon.2019.006.

6. Bornstein J, Bogliatto F, Haefner HK et al. The 2015 International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) terminology of vulvar squamous intraepithelial lesions. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2016; 20 (1): 11–14. doi: 10.1097/LGT. 0000000000000169.

7. Micheletti L, Preti M, Radici G et al. Vulvar lichen sclerosus and neoplastic transformation: a retrospective study of 976 cases. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2016; (20) 2 : 180–183. doi: 10.1097/LGT. 0000000000000186.

8. Hoang LN, Park KJ, Soslow RA et al. Squamous precursor lesions of the vulva: current classification and diagnostic challenges. Pathology 2016; 48 (4): 291–302. doi: 10.1016/ j.pathol.2016.02.015.

9. Ševčík L, Škapa P, Vantuchová Y et al. Dlaždicobuněčné prekancerózy vulvy. Historie a současný stav problematiky. Ceska Gynekol 2016; 81 (3): 172–176.

10. Jamieson A, Tse SS, Brar H et al. A systematic review of risk factors for development, recurrence, and progression of vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2022; 26 (2): 140–146. doi: 10.1097/LGT.00000000000 00662.

11. Satmary W, Holschneider CH, Brunette II et al. Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia: risk factors for recurrence. Gynecol Oncol 2018; 148 (1): 126–131. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.10.029.

12. Ioffe YJ, Erickson BK, Foster KE et al. Low yield of residual vulvar carcinoma and dysplasia upon re -⁠ excision for close or positive margins. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 129 (3): 528–532. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.02.033.

13. van Seters M, van Beurden M, de Craen AJ. Is the assumed natural history of vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III based on enough evidence? A systematic review of 3322 published patients. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 97 (2): 645–651. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno. 2005.02.012.

14. Pichlík T, Rob L, Halaška MJ et al. Epidemiologie a význam chirurgických okrajů v managementu HPV asociovaných vulvárních prekanceróz (HSIL) –⁠ analýza vlastního souboru. Ceska Gynekol 2022; 87 (6): 384–387. doi: 10.48095/cccg2022384.

15. Thuijs NB, van Beurden M, Bruggink AH et al. Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia: incidence and long-term risk of vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Cancer 2021; 148 (1): 90–98. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33198.

16. Modesitt SC, Waters AB, Walton L et al. Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia III: occult cancer and the impact of margin status on recurrence. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92 (6): 962–966. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844 (98) 00350-0.

17. Wallbillich JJ, Rhodes HE, Milbourne AM et al. Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN 2/3): comparing clinical outcomes and evaluating risk factors for recurrence. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 127 (2): 312–315. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012. 07.118.

18. Bogani G, Martinelli F, Ditto A et al. The association of pre-treatment HPV subtypes with recurrence of VIN. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 211 : 37–41. doi: 10.1016/ j. ejogrb.2017.01.057.

19. Lawrie TA, Nordin A, Chakrabarti M et al. Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of usual-type vulval intraepithelial neoplasia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2016 (1): CD011837. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011837.pub2.

20. Jones RW, Rowan DM, Stewart AW. Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia: aspects of the natural history and outcome in 405 women. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106 (6): 1319–1326. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000187301.76283.7f.

ORCID autorů

D. Driák 0000-0002-3072-0178

M. Pluta 0000-0003-3918-0806

K. Hurt 0000-0002-5373-2358

Doručeno/Submitted: 1. 8. 2025

Přijato/Accepted: 5. 11. 2025

MUDr. Daniel Driák, Ph.D.

Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika

2. LF UK a FN Motol a Homolka

V Úvalu 84

150 06 Praha 5

driak@seznam.cz