Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 579–585 | Cite as

Optimizing biopsy procedures during colposcopy for women with abnormal cervical cancer screening results: a multicenter prospective study

  • Yuko Nakamura
  • Koji MatsumotoEmail author
  • Toyomi Satoh
  • Ken Nishide
  • Akiko Nozue
  • Koji Shimabukuro
  • Seiichi Endo
  • Kimihiro Nagai
  • Akinori Oki
  • Takeo Minaguchi
  • Yukio Morishita
  • Masayuki Noguchi
  • Hiroyuki Yoshikawa
Original Article

Abstract

Background

In cervical cancer screening programs, women with abnormal cytology results are referred to colposcopy for histological diagnosis. This study was designed to evaluate the sensitivity of colposcopic procedures for detecting cervical cancer and its precursor, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).

Methods

Women referred to colposcopy for abnormal cytology were enrolled from four hospitals. Gynecologists were required to take a colposcopy-guided biopsy from the worst of the abnormal-looking areas as a first biopsy. They were also asked to take ≥3 cervical specimens including by endocervical curettage (ECC). Random biopsies were performed at the gynecologist’s discretion. We analyzed 827 biopsy results from 255 women who were diagnosed by central pathologists as having histology of CIN or cancer.

Results

In this study, 78.1 % of diagnoses of CIN grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) (the threshold that would trigger intensive management) were obtained from a first colposcopy-guided biopsy. The additional diagnostic utility of second and third colposcopy-guided biopsies was 16.4 and 1.8 %, respectively. The combined sensitivity of two colposcopy-directed biopsies for CIN2+ detection was >90 %, regardless of the colposcopist. Random biopsies and ECC increased the diagnostic yield of CIN2+ lesions otherwise missed by colposcopy-guided biopsies alone, but only by 1.2 and 2.4 %, respectively. Random biopsies were more useful for women referred after low-grade abnormal cytology (P = 0.01). The utility of ECC was greatest among women with unsatisfactory colposcopy (P = 0.03) or aged ≥40 years (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

Our data suggest that at least two colposcopy-directed biopsies should be taken for histological diagnosis. Random biopsies and ECC are recommended for special populations.

Keywords

Colposcopy Biopsy CIN Cervical cancer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Chizuko Fukui and Yoko Kuno for technical assistance; Kokoro Hirai and Chieko Abe for assistance in data collection; many other researchers who facilitated this study; and all the women who participated in the study. This work was supported by grants from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (Grant # 25462585) and the Ibaraki Clinical and Epidemiological Cancer Research Project. The supporting organizations played no role in the design and implementation of the study; the collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference et al (2013) 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol 121:829–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Takeda T, Wong TF, Adachi T et al (2012) Guidelines for office gynecology in Japan: Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2011 edition. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 38:615–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jeronimo J, Schiffman M (2006) Colposcopy at a crossroads. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:349–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chase DM, Kalouyan M, DiSaia PJ (2009) Colposcopy to evaluate abnormal cervical cytology in 2008. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:472–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K, ASCUS LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group et al (2006) Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 108:264–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Solomon D, Stoler M, Jeronimo J et al (2007) Diagnostic utility of endocervical curettage in women undergoing colposcopy for equivocal or low-grade cytologic abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 110:288–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pretorius RG, Zhang WH, Belinson JL et al (2004) Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:430–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gage JC, Duggan MA, Nation JG et al (2010) Detection of cervical cancer and its precursors by endocervical curettage in 13,115 colposcopically guided biopsy examinations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:481.e1–481.e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stoler MH, Vichnin MD, Ferenczy A, FUTURE I, II and III Investigators et al (2011) The accuracy of colposcopic biopsy: analyses from the placebo arm of the Gardasil clinical trials. Int J Cancer 128:1354–1362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Forum Group Members, Bethesda 2001 Workshop et al (2002) The 2001 Bethesda system: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 287:2114–2119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hatch KD, Shingleton HM, Orr JW Jr et al (1985) Role of endocervical curettage in colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 65:403–408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fine BA, Feinstein GI, Sabella V (1998) The pre- and postoperative value of endocervical curettage in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 71:46–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moniak CW, Kutzner S, Adam E et al (2000) Endocervical curettage in evaluating abnormal cervical cytology. J Reprod Med 45:285–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oyama IA, Wakabayashi MT, Frattarelli LC et al (2003) Local anesthetic reduces the pain of colposcopic biopsies: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:1164–1165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Massad LS, Collins YC (2003) Using history and colposcopy to select women for endocervical curettage. Results from 2,287 cases. J Reprod Med 48:1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox JT, Members of LAST Project Work Groups et al (2012) The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization Project for HPV-Associated Lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 136:1266–1297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuko Nakamura
    • 1
    • 2
  • Koji Matsumoto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Toyomi Satoh
    • 1
  • Ken Nishide
    • 3
  • Akiko Nozue
    • 3
  • Koji Shimabukuro
    • 4
  • Seiichi Endo
    • 4
  • Kimihiro Nagai
    • 5
  • Akinori Oki
    • 1
    • 5
  • Takeo Minaguchi
    • 1
  • Yukio Morishita
    • 2
  • Masayuki Noguchi
    • 2
  • Hiroyuki Yoshikawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Pathology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  3. 3.Department of GynecologyTsukuba Medical Center HospitalTsukubaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyTsuchiura Kyodo General HospitalTsuchiuraJapan
  5. 5.Department of GynecologyIbaraki Prefectural Central HospitalKasamaJapan

Personalised recommendations