Abstract
With the integration of cytology into the cervical cancer screening, the mortality rate of cervical cancer has dramatically decreased. Cytology has since been incorporated into the cervical cancer screening. The revised Bethesda System for cervical cancer screening now includes sections that address the quality of cytological specimens and that highlight the limitations of cytology. The most significant topic, especially in the revised 2001 edition, is the introduction of the concept of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection into cytology. However, cytology is significantly less sensitive than the molecular biological method, PCR. Initial screening using a highly sensitive method followed by a high-specificity cytology triage is therefore an appropriate screening algorithm.
Aging and pregnancy pose two specific issues with regard to cytology in Japan. As the Japanese population is aging rapidly, the interpretation of cytology must take into account aging-dependent factors that modulate readouts. With regard to pregnancy, it is often the case that cytology tests are first performed in women once they become pregnant; younger women are rarely offered such tests.
Colposcopy is performed as a workup test for patients who have received abnormal results following cervical cancer screening or for those individuals in whom abnormal cervical morphologies are detected following visual inspection. Colposcopy is predominantly used for detecting high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions rather than overt invasive carcinoma. Inter-observer bias is also common. It has also been reported that different levels of cytology knowledge and experience between colposcopists can lead to diverse interpretations of colposcopy results. This had led to the creation of a system that standardizes the grading of lesion severity so that results are concordant between examiners. Most CIN3 lesions are flat. In contrast, nodular, papillary, or have outgrowing contours and are indicators of the precursors to invasive cancer. Ulcers are associated with invasive carcinoma. The highest grade lesion, an opaque white color, often described as a deep white or oyster gray, may be where the acetic acid-induced white coloration is most persistent. The distance between vessels in CIN3 lesions is heterogeneous compared to CIN1. The timing of the colposcopy during pregnancy is important for accurate diagnosis. Ideally, colposcopy and histology results should be obtained in the first 20 weeks of gestation to yield robust and concordant data.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Frable WJ. Error reduction and risk management in cytopathology. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2007;24:77–88.
Christopherson WM, Parker JE, Drye JC. Control of cervical cancer. Preliminary report on community program. JAMA. 1962;182:179–82.
Kurokawa T, Onuma T, Shinagawa A, et al. The ideal strategy for cervical cancer screening in Japan: result from the Fukui cervical cancer screening study. Cytopathology. 2018;29:361–7.
Kovacic MB, Castle PE, Herrero R, et al. Relationships of human papillomavirus type, qualitative viral load, and age with cytologic abnormality. Cancer Res. 2006;66:10112–9.
Tota JE, Bentley J, Blake J, et al. Introduction of molecular HPV testing as the primary technology in cervical cancer screening: acting on evidence to change the current paradigm. Prev Med. 2017;98:5–14.
Egemen D, Cheung LC, Chen X, et al. Risk estimates supporting the 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:132–43.
Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, et al. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24:102–31.
Kawaguchi R, Matsumoto K, Ishikawa T, et al. Guideline for gynecological practice in Japan: Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2020 edition. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47:5–25.
Dona MG, Vocaturo A, Giuliani M, et al. p16/Ki-67 dual staining in cervico-vaginal cytology: correlation with histology, human papillomavirus detection and genotyping in women undergoing colposcopy. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126:198–202.
Fujii T, Saito M, Hasegawa T, et al. Performance of p16/Ki-67 immunocytochemistry for identifying CIN2+ in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion specimens: a Japanese gynecologic oncology group study. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015;20:134–42.
Wentzensen N, Clarke MA, Bremer R, et al. Clinical evaluation of human papillomavirus screening with p16/Ki-67 dual stain triage in a large organized cervical cancer screening program. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:881–8.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Dynamics. World population prospects key findings & advance tables 2017 revision. New York, NY: United Nations; 2017.
Miki M, Imaeda Y, Takahashi H, et al. Lower accuracy of cytological screening for high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia in women over 50 years of age in Japan. Int J Clin Oncol. 2021;27:427–33.
Bateson DJ, Weisberg E. An open-label randomized trial to determine the most effective regimen of vaginal estrogen to reduce the prevalence of atrophic changes reported in postmenopausal cervical smears. Menopause. 2009;16:765–9.
Korenaga TK, Tewari KS. Gynecologic cancer in pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157:799–809.
Ribeiro F, Correia L, Paula T, et al. Cervical cancer in pregnancy: 3 cases, 3 different approaches. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17:66–70.
Cox JT. The road to cervical cancer prevention: historical perspective. In: Mayeaux J, Cox JT, et al., editors. Modern colposcopy: textbook & atlas. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW); 2012. p. 1–13.
Buxton EJ, Luesley DM, Shafi MI, et al. Colposcopically directed punch biopsy: a potentially misleading investigation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98:1273–6.
Girardi F, Reich O, Tamussino K, et al. Histology and histopathology. In: Girardi F, Reich O, Tamussino K, et al., editors. Burghardt’s colposcopy and cervical pathology: textbook and atlas. Thieme; 2015. p. 24–61.
Yang B, Pretorius RG, Belinson JL, et al. False negative colposcopy is associated with thinner cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 and 3. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110:32–6.
Zahm DM, Nindl I, Greinke C, et al. Colposcopic appearance of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is age dependent. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:1298–304.
Jeronimo J, Massad LS, Schiffman M. Visual appearance of the uterine cervix: correlation with human papillomavirus detection and type. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:47.e41–8.
Sherman ME, Wang SS, Tarone R, et al. Histopathologic extent of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 lesions in the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion triage study: implications for subject safety and lead-time bias. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2003;12:372–9.
Stellato G, Paavonen J. A colposcopic scoring system for grading cervical lesions. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1995;16:296–300.
Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K, et al. Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:264–72.
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;110:288–95.
Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL triage study. JAMA. 2001;285:1500–5.
Ferris DG, Mayeaux J, Cox JT. Colposcopy of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. In: Mayeaux J, Cox JT, et al., editors. Modern colposcopy: textbook & atlas. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW); 2012. p. 235–305.
Sakuma T, Hasegawa T, Tsutsui F, et al. Quantitative analysis of the whiteness of the atypical cervical transformation zone. J Reprod Med. 1985;30:773–6.
Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, et al. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2007;370:890–907.
Dalla Palma P, Giorgi Rossi P, Collina G, et al. The reproducibility of CIN diagnoses among different pathologists: data from histology reviews from a multicenter randomized study. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132:125–32.
Sillman F, Boyce J, Fruchter R. The significance of atypical vessels and neovascularization in cervical neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981;139:154–9.
Sugimori H, Matsuyama T, Kashimura M, et al. Colposcopic findings in microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1979;34:804–7.
Ferris DG, Cox JT, Mayeaux J, et al. Colposcopy and pregnancy. In: Mayeaux J, Cox JT, et al., editors. Modern colposcopy: textbook & atlas. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW); 2012. p. 343–75.
Kärrberg C, Ryd W, Strander B, et al. Histological diagnosis and evaluation of the swede score colposcopic system in a large cohort of pregnant women with atypical cervical cytology or cervical malignancy signs. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:952–8.
Ciavattini A, Serri M, Di Giuseppe J, et al. Reliability of colposcopy during pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;229:76–81.
Fader AN, Alward EK, Niederhauser A, et al. Cervical dysplasia in pregnancy: a multi-institutional evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:113.e111–6.
Stonehocker J. Cervical cancer screening in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2013;40:269–82.
Hunter MI, Monk BJ, Tewari KS. Cervical neoplasia in pregnancy. Part 1: screening and management of preinvasive disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:3–9.
Jeronimo J, Castle PE, Temin S, et al. Secondary prevention of cervical cancer: ASCO resource-stratified clinical practice guideline. J Glob Oncol. 2017;3:635–57.
Amant F, Halaska MJ, Fumagalli M, et al. Gynecologic cancers in pregnancy: guidelines of a second international consensus meeting. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:394–403.
Levitt C, Shaw E, Wong S, et al. Systematic review of the literature on postpartum care: selected contraception methods, postpartum Papanicolaou test, and rubella immunization. Birth. 2004;31:203–12.
Van Calsteren K, Vergote I, Amant F. Cervical neoplasia during pregnancy: diagnosis, management and prognosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;19:611–30.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fujii, T. (2024). Diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia with Special Reference to Roles of Cervical Cytology and Colposcopy. In: Aoki, D. (eds) Recent Topics on Prevention, Diagnosis, and Clinical Management of Cervical Cancer. Comprehensive Gynecology and Obstetrics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-9396-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-9396-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-9395-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-9396-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)