Skip to main content

Diagnosis of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia with Special Reference to Roles of Cervical Cytology and Colposcopy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Recent Topics on Prevention, Diagnosis, and Clinical Management of Cervical Cancer

Part of the book series: Comprehensive Gynecology and Obstetrics ((CGO))

  • 75 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Frable WJ. Error reduction and risk management in cytopathology. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2007;24:77–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Christopherson WM, Parker JE, Drye JC. Control of cervical cancer. Preliminary report on community program. JAMA. 1962;182:179–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Dynamics. World population prospects key findings & advance tables 2017 revision. New York, NY: United Nations; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Korenaga TK, Tewari KS. Gynecologic cancer in pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;157:799–809.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Buxton EJ, Luesley DM, Shafi MI, et al. Colposcopically directed punch biopsy: a potentially misleading investigation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;98:1273–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Stellato G, Paavonen J. A colposcopic scoring system for grading cervical lesions. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1995;16:296–300.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K, et al. Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:264–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, et al. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2007;370:890–907.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sugimori H, Matsuyama T, Kashimura M, et al. Colposcopic findings in microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1979;34:804–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ciavattini A, Serri M, Di Giuseppe J, et al. Reliability of colposcopy during pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;229:76–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stonehocker J. Cervical cancer screening in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2013;40:269–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takuma Fujii .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics