Prebioptic methods in the cervical cancer screening

Czech version

Authors: V. Dvořák ¹; R. Pilka ²; M. Lubušký ²; K. Langová ³
Authors‘ workplace: Centrum ambulantní gynekologie a primární péče, Brno ¹; Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika FN a LF UP, Olomouc, přednosta prof. MUDr. R. Pilka, Ph. D. ²; Ústav lékařské biofyziky LF UP, Olomouc ³
Published in: Ceska Gynekol 2014; 79(4): 260-268

Overview

Objective:
To evaluate the agreement between Pap smears, colposcopic findings and definitive excisional specimen in patients with abnormal Pap smears.

Design:
Retrospective study.

Setting:
Center of outpatient gynecology and primary care, Brno; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Olomouc; Department of Medical Biophysics, Palacky University, Olomouc.

Subjects and methods of the study:
This retrospective study assessed the correlation between colposcopy and histopathology of woman who had abnormal Pap smears. Colposcopic chart review included participants from 2008 to 2012 who attended colposcopic clinic, center of outpatient gynecology care, Brno.

Results:
One thousand nine hundred and twenty five patients screened by cytology, submitted to colposcopy and subjected to cone biopsy were selected. Cytopathological results were compared with colposcopic findings and results obtained on the basis of histological analyses of cone biopsy specimen. Agreement of cytology and histopathological diagnosis was in 1199 patients (62.3%). Agreement of colposcopic diagnosis and cervical pathology was matched in 1492 (93.5%). Agreement of colposcopy and cytology was found in 1022 pacientek (64.1%). False negatives of cytology in high grade lesions were in 36.4%.

Conclusion:
Strength of agreement between colposcopic diagnosis and cervical pathology was found to be very good while for cytology high percentage of false negative results was seen. Expert colposcopists and high quality standard cytopathologic and bioptic laboratories are necessary for nationwide cervical screening programmes.

Keywords:
cervical cancer, colposcopy, oncological cytology, histology, CIN, cone biopsy

Sources

1. Baum, ME., Rader, JS., Gibb, RK., et al. Colposcopic accuracy of obstetrics and gynecology residents. Gynecol Oncol, 2006, 103(3), p. 966–970.

2. Bekkers, RL., van de Nieuwenhof, HP., Neesham, DE., et al. Does experience in colposcopy improve identification of high grade abnormalities? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2008, 141(1), p. 75–78.

3. Bornstein, J., Bentley, J., Bosze, P., et al. 2011 colposcopic terminology of the international federation for cervical pathology and colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 120(1), p. 166–172.

4. Cantor, SB., Cardenas-Turanzas, M., Cox, DD., et al. Accu-racy of colposcopy in the diagnostic setting compared with the screening setting. Obstet Gynecol, 2008, 111(1), p. 7–14.

5. Castle, PE., Stoler, MH., Solomon, D., Schiffman, M. The relationship of community biopsy-diagnosed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 to the quality control pathology-reviewed diagnoses: An alts report. Amer J clin Pathol, 2007, 127(5), p. 805–815.

6. Cuzick, J., Clavel, C., Petry, KU., et al. Overview of the european and north american studies on hpv testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Intern J Cancer, 2006, 119(5), p. 1095–1101.

7. Ferris, DG., Litaker, MS., Group, A. Prediction of cervical histologic results using an abbreviated reid colposcopic index during alts. Amer J Obstet Gynecol, 2006, 194(3), p. 704–710.

8. Gage, JC., Hanson, VW., Abbey, K., et al., Group ALTS. Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol, 2006, 108(2), p. 264–272.

9. Herbeck, G., Ondruš, J., Dvořák, V., Mortakis, A. Atlas kolposkopie. Praha: Maxdorf, 2011.

10. Hoekstra, AV., Kosinski, A., Huh, WK. Hormonal contraception and false-positive cervical cytology: Is there an association?J Lower genital Tract Dis, 2006, 10(2), p. 102–106.

11. Jeronimo, J., Massad, LS., Castle, PE., et al., National Institutes of Health – American Society for C, Cervical Pathology Research G. Interobserver agreement in the evaluation of digitized cervical images. Obstet Gynecol, 2007, 110(4), p. 833–840.

12. Jordan, J., Arbyn, M., Martin-Hirsch, P., et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: Recommendations for clinical management of abnormal cervical cytology, part 1. Cytopathology: official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology, 2008, 19(6), p. 342–354.

13. Kitchener, HC., Castle, PE., Cox, JT. Chapter 7: Achievements and limitations of cervical cytology screening. Vaccine, 2006, 24, Suppl 3, p. 63–70.

14. Massad, LS., Collins, YC. Strength of correlations between colposcopic impression and biopsy histology. Gynecol Oncol, 2003, 89(3), p. 424–428.

15. Massad, LS., Collins, YC, Meyer, PM. Biopsy correlates of abnormal cervical cytology classified using the bethesda system. Gynecol Oncol, 2001, 82(3), p. 516–522.

16. Massad, LS., Jeronimo, J., Schiffman, M., National Institutes of Health/American Society for C, Cervical Patho-logy Research G. Interobserver agreement in the assessment of components of colposcopic grading. Obstet Gynecol, 2008, 111(6), p. 1279–1284.

17. Mitchell, MF., Schottenfeld, D., Tortolero-Luna, G., et al. Colposcopy for the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions: A meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol, 1998, 91(4), p. 626–631.

18. Owens, CL., Moats, DR., Burroughs, FH., Gustafson, KS. „Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion“ is a distinct cytologic category: Histologic outcomes and hpv prevalence. Amer J clin Pathol, 2007, 128(3), p. 398–403.

19. Pinto, AP., Guedes, GB., Tuon, FF., et al. Cervical cancer screening program of parana: Cytohistological correlation results after five years. Diagnostic Cytopathol, 2005, 33(4), p. 279–283.

20. Pretorius, RG., Zhang, WH., Belinson, JL., et al. Colpo-scopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia ii or worse. Amer J Obstet Gynecol, 2004, 191(2), p. 430–434.

21. Sigurdsson, K., Sigvaldason, H. Effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in iceland, 1964–2002: A study on trends in incidence and mortality and the effect of risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynec Scand, 2006, 85(3), p. 343–349.

22. Solomon, D., Stoler, M., Jeronimo, J., et al. Diagnostic utility of endocervical curettage in women undergoing colposcopy for equivocal or low-grade cytologic abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol, 2007, 110(2 Pt 1), p. 288–295.

23. Stoler, MH., Vichnin, MD., Ferenczy, A., et al. The accuracy of colposcopic biopsy: Analyses from the placebo arm of the gardasil clinical trials. Intern J Cancer, 2011, 128(6), p. 1354–1362.

24. Szurkus, DC., Harrison, TA. Loop excision for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion on cytology: Correlation with colposcopic and histologic findings. Amer J Obstet Gynecol, 2003, 188(5), p. 1180–1182.

25. Wentzensen, N., Bergeron, C., Cas, F., et al. Triage of women with ascus and lsil cytology: Use of qualitative assessment of p16ink4a positive cells to identify patients with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer, 2007, 111(1), p. 58–66.

26. Wentzensen, N., Zuna, RE., Sherman, ME., et al. Accuracy of cervical specimens obtained for biomarker studies in women with cin3. Gynecol Oncol, 2009, 115(3), p. 493–496.

27. www.svod.cz: In 2013.