Advertisement

Cytological early detection of cervical carcinoma: possibilities and limitations. Analysis of failures

  • Günter Möbius
Guest Editorial

Abstract

Gynecological cytology has been intensified in the district of Schwerin since 1968. The incidence of cervical carcinoma decreased from 38.9 per 100,000 women in 1969 to 19.8 in 1991 (50% of the initial figure). The mortality decreased from 25.1 to as little as 7.0 (28% of the initial figure). Because invasive cervical carcinoma is theoretically avoidable, a total of 577 new cases observed from 1980 to 1988 were investigated in respect of participation in screening and reasons for the failures. 317 (55%) of these women did not participate in the examination more than five years before diagnosis of invasive cancer. 260 (45%) of these women were examined by gynecologists once, several times (87 (67%)) or annually (173 (33%)) during a five year period prior to the diagnosis of cancer. An independent review of the smears explained the highest number of negative smears by nonobtaining of representative material and only 19% as a misinterpretation of the cytological finding. The gynecologists failed to: take smears (36 women); carry out a cytological control or histological verification (48); obtain adequate smears (116); consider clinical symptoms (22).

Key words

Cervical carcinoma Results of screening Results of conizations Analysis of failures 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bayrle W (1977) Kritische Betrachtungen zur Rate der „falsch negativen” Befunde in der gynäkologischen Zytologie. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 37:864–868PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Berndt H, Neuser D (1978) Epidemiologie des Zervixkarzinoms. Arch Geschwulstforsch 48:250–275PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bomke P (1986) Warum treten trotz intensiver zytologischer Vorsorgeuntersuchungen im Bezirk Schwerin noch Zervixkarzinome auf? Analyse von Versagern der Früherkennung 1980 bis 1982. Inaugural-Diss. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Boon ME, Alons-van Kordelaar JJ, Rietveld-Scheffers PE (1986) Consequences of the introduction of combined spatula and cytobrush sampling for cervical cytology. Improvements in smear quality and detection rates. Acta Cytol 30:264–270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boon ME, Graaff-Gouillaud JC de, Kok LP, Olthof PM, Erp EJM van (1987) Efficacy of screening for cervical squamous and adenocarcinoma. The Dutch experience. Cancer 59:862–866PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boon ME, Graaff-Gouillaud JC de, Rietveld WJ (1989) Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 33:843–848PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosch MMC, Rietveld-Scheffers PEM, Boon ME (1992) Characteristics of false-negative smears tested in the normal screening situation. Acta Cytol 36:711–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyes DA, Fidler KH, Lock DR (1962) Significance of in situ carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Br Med J 1:203–205Google Scholar
  9. Breitenecker G (1978) Zur Frage der Altersstruktur von Frauen mit zervikalen intraepithelialen Neoplasien und invasiven Zervixkarzinomen. Wien Klin Wochenschr 90:527–534PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Burghardt E (1981) Zur Frage der sogenannten konservativen Behandlung des atypischen Zervixepithels. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 41:330–334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietl J, Buchholz F, Semm K (1981) Zur Epidemiologie und Diagnostik der Vor- und Frühformen des Kollumkarzinoms. Eine Analyse von 1194 Konisationen. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 41:173–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunn JE, Schweitzer V (1981) The relationship of cervical cytology to the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and mortality in Alameda Country, California, 1960 to 1974. Am J Obstet Gynecol 139:868–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ermisch R (1993) Analyse von Versagern der Früherkennung des Zervixkarzinoms 1983 bis 1988. Inaug-Diss, RostockGoogle Scholar
  14. Fennell RH (1955) Carcinoma in situ of cervix with early invasive changes. Cancer 8:302–309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fennell RH (1956) Carcinoma in situ of uterine cervix; report of 118 cases. Cancer 9:374–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fidler HK, Boyes DA (1959) Patterns of early invasion from intraepithelial carcinoma of the cervix. Cancer 12:673–680PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fredricsson B, Nasiell M, Sennerstam R, Wadas AM (1977) Is there a changing epidemiology of premalignant lesions of the cervix? Results of cytologic screening of pregnant women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 56:435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Furch W, Cramer H (1976) Zytologische Zervixuntersuchungen bei Frauen bis zum dreißigsten Lebensjahr. Dtsch Ärzteblatt 36:381–387Google Scholar
  19. Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Goellner JR (1985) False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 29:1043–1046PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Graaf Y van der et al. (1987) Screening errors in cervical cytology smears. Acta Cytol 31:434–438 (Cited by Koss 1992)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gray LA (ed) (1964) Dysplasia, carcinoma in situ and microinvasive carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Thomas, Springfield, Ill pp 228–283Google Scholar
  22. Gusberg SB (1983) The diagnosis of gynecologic cancer. Cancer 51:2477–2479PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hilgarth M, Schultz R (1981) Ursachen und Ausmaß falsch negativer Befunde in der gynäkologischen Krebsvorsorge. Frauenarzt 22:324–328Google Scholar
  24. Hill EC (1966) Preclinical cervical carcinoma colposcopy, and the “negative” smear. Am J Obstet Gynecol 95:308–319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hinselmann H (1927a) Zur Kenntnis der praecancerösen Veränderungen der Portio. Zentralbl Gynäkol 51:901Google Scholar
  26. Hinselmann H (1927b) Über die Methodik der Diagnose der Portioleukoplakien. Zentralbl Gynäkol 51:3162Google Scholar
  27. Holzner JH (1985) Reliability and sensitivity of histology in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and early cancer. In Grundmann E (ed) Cancer campaign, vol 8: Cancer of the uterine cervix. Fischer, Stuttgart New York, pp 127–132Google Scholar
  28. Killackey MA, Jones WB, Lewis JL (1986) Diagnostic conization of the cervix: review of 460 consecutive cases. Obstet Gynecol 67:766–770PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Koss LG (1980) The attack on the annual “Pap smear”. Acta Cytol 24:181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Koss LG (1992) Diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases, vol 1. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 371–512Google Scholar
  31. Koss LG, Siewart FW, Foote FW, Jordan MJ, Bader GM, Day E (1963) Some histological aspects of behavior of epidermoid carcinoma in situ and related lesions of the uterine cervix. A long-term prospective study. Cancer 16:1160–1211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Melamed MR; Flehinger BJ (1992) Reevaluation of quality assurance in the cytology laboratory. Acta Cytol 36:461–465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Möbius G (1977) Zum biologischen Verhalten des Carcinoma in situ der Zervix uteri. Zentralbl Allg Pathol 121:397–403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Möbius G (1985) The value of cytodiagnosis in cervix cancer precursors and the latency and progression of carcinoma in situ. Pathol Res Pract 180:670–674PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Möbius G, Geiling J, Kröber B, Witte G, Wittstock G (1987) Die Bedeutung der Konisation für die Früherkennung des Zervixkarzinoms. Histologische Konustechnik und Schnittzahl — Ergebnisse 1966 bis 1985 — Zweiterkrankungen nach Konisation — Beeinflussung der Epidemiologie des Zervixkarzinoms und seiner Vor- und Frühstadien. In Ebeling K (ed) Zervixkarzinom. Beiträge zur Verhütung, Früherkennung und Behandlung. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, pp 140–158Google Scholar
  36. Morf P (1979) Versagerfälle bei der Frühdiagnostik des Kollumkarzinoms. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 39:609–612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Naujoks H (1981) Heutiger Stand des zytologischen Screening des Zervixkarzinoms. Gynäkologe 14:204–211Google Scholar
  38. Naujoks H, Leppien G, Rogosaroff-Fricke R (1976) Negativer zytologischer Abstrich bei Carcinoma in situ der Zervix uteri. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 36:570–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Navratil E (1964) Colposcopy. In Gray LA (ed) Dysplasia, carcinoma in situ and micro-invasive carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Thomas, Springfield, Ill, pp 228–283Google Scholar
  40. Neuser D, Prothmann V, Berndt H (1978) Falsch negative Befunde im Berliner Zytologie-Programm zur Erfassung der Früh- und Vorstufen des Zervixkarzinoms. Fortschr Med 96:346–348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ng ABP, Reagan JW (1969) Microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Am J Clin Pathol 52:511–529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pfleiderer A (1981) Entwicklungsgeschichte der zervikalen, intraepithelialen Neoplasie. Gynäkologe 14:194–198Google Scholar
  43. Pfleiderer A, Hilgarth M, Eberl M, Bösch W (1981) Das Schicksal des atypischen Epithels an der Portio und im Corpus uteri. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax 70:595–605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Richart RM, Barron BA (1981) Screening strategies for cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer 47:1176–1181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rylander E (1976) Cervical cancer in women belonging to a cytologically screened population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 55:361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Schneider ML (1985) Zervixkarzinom trotz Vorsorge. Klinische und histomorphologische Untersuchung an 255 Zervixkarzinomen der Jahre 1974 bis 1980 zur Frage eines zweiten, aggressiv wachsenden Karzinomtyps. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 45:610–619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Sedlis A, Walters AT, Balin H, Hontz A, LoSciuto L (1974) Evaluation of two simultaneously obtained cervical cytological smears. Acta Cytol 18:291–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Shield PW, Daunter B, Wright RG (1987) The Pap smear revisited. Aust NS J Obstet Gynaecol 27:269–283Google Scholar
  49. Torhorst J (1981) Histologie der prämalignen Veränderungen der Cervix uteri. Gynäkologe 14:199–203Google Scholar
  50. Willis RA (1953) Pathology of tumours, 2nd edn. Butterworth, London, pp 204–205Google Scholar
  51. Younge PA, Hertig AT, Armstrong D (1949) Study of 135 cases of carcinoma in situ of cervix at free hospital for women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 58:867–895PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Günter Möbius
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinikum SchwerinInstitute of PathologySchwerinGermany

Personalised recommendations