Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix –10-year series

Czech version

Authors: doc. MUDr. Pavel Freitag, CSc.
Authors‘ workplace: Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. Alois Martan, DrSc.
Published in: Prakt Gyn 2015; 19(1): 42-45
Category: Oncogynecology: Original Article

Overview

In a series of 39 cases of adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix, age of patients, cytological, colposcopical and histological findings, operations and definitive solutions have been analyzed. Median age was 38 (24 – 75). Praebioptic suspicion of a glandular laesion was expressed in 7 cytological (18 %) and 7 colposcopical (18 %) findings. In 28 patients (72 %) the coexistent squamous laesion was concurrently present. In 16 cases (46 %) from 35 conisations histologically positive margins were described and in 15 of them repeated or definitive operation was performed. Among them, in 2 cases invasive adenocarcinoma was present.

Key words:
adenocarcinoma in situ – colposcopy – cytology – positive margine – uterine cervix

Sources

1. Sláma J. Prekancerózy v gynekologii. In: Cibula D, Petruželka L (eds). Onkogynekologie. Grada: Praha 2009; 315–339. ISBN 978–80–247–2665–6.

2. McCluggage WG. Premalignant lesions of the lower female genital tract: cervix, vagina and vulva. Pathology. 2013; 45(3): 214–228.

3. Salani R, Puri I, Bristow RE. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: a metaanalysis of 1278 patients evaluating the predictive value of conization margin status. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200(2):182.e1–5. Dostupné z DOI: <http://doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.012>.

4. Baalbergen A, Helmerhorst TJ. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix--a systematic review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014; 24(9): 1543–1548.

5. Taylor JS, Panico V, Caputo T et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix treated by conization. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2014; 35(6): 641–645.

6. Tierney KE, Lin PS, Amezcua C et al. Cervical conization of adenocarcinoma in situ: a predicting model of residual disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210(4): 366.e1–5. Dostupné z DOI: <http://doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.12.030>.

7. Latif NA, Neubauer NL, Helenowski IB et al. Management of Adenocarcinoma In Situ of the Uterine Cervix: A Comparison of Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure and Cold Knife Conization. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2014. Dostupné z WWW: <http://journals.lww.com/jlgtd/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=9000&issue=00000&article=99713&type=abstract>.

8. Costales AB, Milbourne AM, Rhodes HE et al. Risk of residual disease and invasive carcinoma in women treated for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 2013; 129(3): 513–516.

9. Costa S, Venturoli S, Negri G et al. Factors predicting the outcome of conservatively treated adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: an analysis of 166 cases. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 124(3): 490–495.

10. Jordan SM, Chase DM, Watanabe T et al. High pathologic misdiagnosis of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2013; 34(5): 446–449.

11. Andersson S, Mints M, Wilander E. Results of cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus testing in females with cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Oncol Lett 2013; 6(1): 215–219.

12. Graesslin O, Dedecker F, Collinet P et al. Management of in situ cervical adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2006; 34(12): 1178–1184.