Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016; 76(02): 182-187
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-111504
Original Article
GebFra Science
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Accuracy of Colposcopically Guided Diagnostic Methods for the Detection of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Treffsicherheit der kolposkopisch gestützten Differenzialdiagnostik zervikaler intraepithelialer Neoplasien
K. Müller
Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover
,
P. Soergel
Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover
,
P. Hillemanns
Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover
,
M. Jentschke
Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 20 September 2015
revised 14 November 2015

accepted 15 December 2015

Publication Date:
29 February 2016 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction: Many factors can affect the accuracy of colposcopically guided biopsy, endocervical curettage (ECC) and differential cytology, all of which are standard, minimally invasive procedures used to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Method: All conizations carried out between 2007 and 2013 in the gynecological department of Hannover Medical School were retrospectively reviewed. The agreement between colposcopic diagnosis and histology was evaluated retrospectively. The analysis included 593 complete datasets out of a total of 717 cases treated. Results: The overall agreement was 85.5 %; the accuracy was significantly higher (p = 0.029) when three biopsy specimens were taken rather than just one. The agreement between diagnosis and histological findings from conization was highest for women < 30 years (90.7 %) and lowest for women > 50 years (72.1 %; p = 0.008). The agreement between preoperative differential cytology and histology results after conization was 86.7 % and improved as patient age increased (p = 0.035). The agreement between ECC findings and the results of conization was only 49.1 % irrespective of patient age, transformation zone or the patientʼs menopausal status. Conclusion: The accuracy of colposcopically guided biopsy appears to increase when three biopsy specimens are taken and is particularly high for younger patients. Differential cytology was also found to be highly accurate and is particularly useful for patients aged more than 50 years. The accuracy of ECC was significantly lower; however ECC can provide important additional information in selected cases.

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung: Die Abklärungskolposkopie mit Biopsieentnahme, endozervikaler Kürettage (ECC) und Differenzialzytologie als Goldstandard in der minimalinvasiven Diagnostik zervikaler intraepithelialer Neoplasien wird in ihrer Aussagekraft durch verschiedene Faktoren beeinflusst. Methodik: Die Übereinstimmung der kolposkopischen Diagnose mit der endgültigen Histologie wurde retrospektiv anhand aller zwischen 2007 bis 2013 durchgeführten Konisationen in der Frauenklinik der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover ausgewertet. Von insges. 717 ermittelten Fällen konnten 593 vollständige Datensätze in die Auswertung aufgenommen werden. Ergebnisse: Insgesamt betrug die Übereinstimmung 85,5 % mit signifikant höherer Treffsicherheit (p = 0,029) bei der Entnahme von 3 Biopsien vs. 1 Biopsie. Die Übereinstimmung war am höchsten bei Frauen < 30 Jahren (90,7 %) und am geringsten > 50 Jahren (72,1 %; p = 0,008). Der differenzialzytologische Abstrich ergab eine Übereinstimmung von 86,7 % mit zunehmender Treffsicherheit bei höherem Alter (p = 0,035). Die ECC hatte eine Übereinstimmung von nur 49,1 % mit dem Konisat unabhängig von Alter, Transformationszone oder Menopausenstatus. Schlussfolgerung: Die Treffsicherheit der kolposkopisch gestützten Biopsie scheint sich durch die Entnahme von 3 Proben steigern zu lassen und besitzt eine sehr hohe Aussagekraft vor allem für jüngere Patientinnen. Auch die Differenzialzytologie zeigt eine hohe Treffsicherheit und kann insbesondere bei Patientinnen über 50 Jahren von Nutzen sein. Die ECC liegt mit ihrer Treffsicherheit deutlich darunter, kann aber in ausgewählten Fällen wichtige zusätzliche Informationen liefern.

Key words

virus infection - cervical cancer - cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) - cervix

Schlüsselwörter

Virusinfektion - Gebärmutterhalskrebs - zervikale intraepitheliale Neoplasie - Gebärmutterhals

Supporting Information

 

  • References

  • 1 Broutet N. WHO guidelines for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 – 3 and adenocarcinoma in situ. Geneva: WHO; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Kuhn W. Colposcopy in the diagnosis of early cervical cancer. Pathologe 2011; 32: 497-504
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Boicea A, Patrascu A, Surlin V et al. Correlations between colposcopy and histologic results from colposcopically directed biopsy in cervical precancerous lesions. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2012; 53 (3 Suppl.) 735-741
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Kierkegaard O, Byralsen C, Hansen KC et al. Association between colposcopic findings and histology in cervical lesions: the significance of the size of the lesion. Gynecol Oncol 1995; 57: 66-71
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Barker B, Garcia F, Lozevski J et al. The correlation between colposcopically directed cervical biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision procedure pathology and the effect of time on that agreement. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 82: 22-26
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zuchna C, Hager M, Tringler B et al. Diagnostic accuracy of guided cervical biopsies: a prospective multicenter study comparing the histopathology of simultaneous biopsy and cone specimen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 321.e1-321.e6
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kirkup W, Hill AS. The accuracy of colposcopically directed biopsy in patients with suspected intraepithelial neoplasia of the cervix. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1980; 87: 1-4
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Heatley MK, Bury JP. The correlation between the grade of dyskaryosis on cervical smear, grade of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) on punch biopsy and the final histological diagnosis on cone biopsies of the cervix. Cytopathology 1998; 9: 93-99
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Stubbe M, Broschewitz U, Kramm G et al. [Analysis of conizations performed 2005–2009 in Rostock]. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 71: 187-193
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Duesing N, Schwarz J, Choschzick M et al. Assessment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) with colposcopic biopsy and efficacy of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP). Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 286: 1549-1554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Ritter J et al. An analysis of the factors involved in the diagnostic accuracy of colposcopically directed biopsy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 468-473
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yeoh GP, Chan KW. The accuracy of Papanicolaou smear predictions: cytohistological correlation of 283 cases. Hong Kong Med J 1997; 3: 373-376
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Loiudice L, Abbiati R, Boselli F et al. Improvement of Pap smear sensitivity using a visual adjunctive procedure: a co-operative Italian study on speculoscopy (GISPE). Eur J Cancer Prev 1998; 7: 295-304
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rose JD, Byun SY, Sims SM et al. The utility of endocervical curettage: does routine ECC at the time of colposcopy for low-grade cytologic abnormalities improve diagnosis of high-grade disease?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 530.e1-530.e3
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nakamura Y, Matsumoto K, Satoh T et al. Optimizing biopsy procedures during colposcopy for women with abnormal cervical cancer screening results: a multicenter prospective study. Int J Clin Oncol 2015; 20: 579-585
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K et al. Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 264-272
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pretorius RG, Zhang WH, Belinson JL et al. Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 430-434
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Soost HJ. The Munich nomenclature. Recent Results Cancer Res 1993; 133: 105-111
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Richart RM. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Pathol Annu 1973; 8: 301-328
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Wentzensen N, Walker JL, Gold MA et al. Multiple biopsies and detection of cervical cancer precursors at colposcopy. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 83-89
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pretorius RG, Belinson JL, Burchette RJ et al. Regardless of skill, performing more biopsies increases the sensitivity of colposcopy. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2011; 15: 180-188
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Baum ME, Rader JS, Gibb RK et al. Colposcopic accuracy of obstetrics and gynecology residents. Gynecol Oncol 2006; 103: 966-970
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Cheng X, Feng Y, Wang X et al. The effectiveness of conization treatment for post-menopausal women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Exp Ther Med 2013; 5: 185-188
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Benedet JL, Anderson GH, Boyes DA. Colposcopic accuracy in the diagnosis of microinvasive and occult invasive carcinoma of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65: 557-562
    Google Scholar
  • 25 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 (2 Pt 1) 288-295
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Massad LS, Collins YC. Using history and colposcopy to select women for endocervical curettage. Results from 2,287 cases. J Reprod Med 2003; 48: 1-6
    Google Scholar