Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1743102
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia: Analyzing the Disease Present Exclusively in the Endocervical Canal
Neoplasia intraepitelial cervical: Analisando a doença presente exclusivamente no canal endocervical
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the role of cervical cytology (Pap smear) in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater (CIN2 + ), presented exclusively in the endocervical canal, the clinical-epidemiological characteristics of this lesion, the necessary length of canal to be removed to treat, and the rate of invasive lesion hidden in the endocervical canal.
Methods Cross-sectional study, by database analysis, of patients with abnormal cytology (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [HSIL]), without visible colposcopy lesion, submitted to loop electrosurgical procedure (LEEP) to evaluate the association of cytology results with the histological product of the conization, to identify the epidemiological characteristics of endocervical lesion and clinical evolution, using a p-value < 0.05 and 95% CI.
Results In 444 cases, the Pap smear sensitivity for CIN2+ diagnosis was 75% (95% CI: 69.8–79.7), specificity was 40% (95% CI: 30.2–49.5), and the prevalence rate of histological lesion was 73% (95% CI: 70.1–78.7). There was a higher prevalence of CIN2+ in women over 42 years old and invasive cancer in those over 56 years old (p < 0.001), and it was necessary to remove 2.6 cm in length of the canal to reduce the chance of recurrence (p < 0.006). The rate of invasive cancer was 2.7%.
Conclusion Cytology was related to a high prevalence to histological lesion (73%) in the diagnosis of CIN2+ in the endocervical disease; older patients presented a higher relationship with histological lesions in the canal disease, and it was necessary to remove an average of 2.6 cm in length of the endocervical canal to avoid the persistence and progression of CIN. The rate of occult neoplasia in the endocervical canal was 2.7%.
Resumo
Objetivo Avaliar o papel da citologia oncótica (CO) no diagnóstico da neoplasia intraepitelial cervical 2 ou maior (NIC2 + ) presente exclusivamente no canal endocervical, as características clínico-epidemiológicas deste tipo de lesão, o comprimento necessário de canal a ser retirado na conização, e a taxa de lesão invasora oculta no canal endocervical.
Métodos Estudo transversal, por análise de base de dados, de pacientes com citologia alterada, sem lesão colposcópica visível, submetidas a conização por cirurgia de alta frequência (CAF), para avaliar a associação dos resultados citológicos com o produto histológico da conização, as características epidemiológicas da lesão endocervical, e evolução clínica, utilizando o valor de p < 0.05 e intervalo de confiança (IC) de 95%.
Resultados Nos 444 casos analisados, a sensibilidade da CO para o diagnóstico de NIC 2+ foi de 75% (IC 95%: 69.8–79.7), a especificidade foi de 40% (IC 95%: 30.2–49.5), e a taxa de prevalência de lesão histológica foi de 73% (IC 95%: 70.1–78.7). Houve maior prevalência de NIC2+ em pacientes com mais de 42 anos de idade e de neoplasia invasora naquelas com mais de 56 anos (p < 0.001), e foi necessário a retirada de 2.6 cm de comprimento de canal para diminuir a taxa de recidiva (p < 0.006). Foi identificada uma taxa de 2.7% de neoplasia invasora.
Conclusão A citologia esteve relacionada a uma alta prevalência de lesão (73%) no diagnóstico das NIC2+ na doença endocervical; quanto maior a idade, maior foi a relação da histologia com a citologia de canal, e se fez necessário retirar uma média de 2.6 cm de comprimento de canal para evitar a persistência e a progressão da NIC. A taxa de neoplasia oculta no canal endocervical foi 2.7%.
Contributors
All authors collaborated with data collection and analysis as well as with the writing and conclusions of this research.
Publication History
Received: 27 July 2021
Accepted: 17 December 2021
Article published online:
11 March 2022
© 2022. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
-
References
- 1 World Health Organization. Elimination of cervical cancer as a global health problem is within reach [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2018. [cited 2020 Oct 20]. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/cancers/en
- 2 Ministério da Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva, Coordenação de Prevenção e Vigilância. Divisão de Detecção Precoce e Apoio à Organização de Rede. [Brazilian guidelines for screening for cervical cancer]. 2nd ed.. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2016. . Portuguese.
- 3 Mello V, Sundstrom RK. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasm [Internet]. Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing; 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 10]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK544371/
- 4 Stofler ME, Nunes RD, Rojas PF, Trapani Junior A, Schneider IJ. [Performance evaluation of cytology and colposcopy compared with histopathology in screening and diagnosis of cervix lesions]. ACM Arq Catarin Med. 2011; 40 (03) 30-36 Portuguese
- 5 Fonseca FV, Tomasich FD, Jung JE. [CIN: from pathological aspects to the efficiency of the methods used in screening and follow up]. DST J Bras Doenças Sex Transm. 2012; 24 (01) 53-61
- 6 Barbosa NR. [Performance of diagnostic methods for the evaluation of the endocervical canal in patients with altered cytology: a meta-analysis] [thesis]. Rio de Janeiro: National Institute of Women, Child and Adolescent Health Fernandes Figueira; 2016. . Portuguese
- 7 Jordão PM, Russomano FB, Gerbauld GT, Andrade CV, Osorio CFEM. Accuracy of endocervical cytological tests in diagnosing preinvasive lesions of the cervical canal in patients with type 3 transformation zone: a retrospective observational study. Sao Paulo Med J 2020; 138 (01) 47-53
- 8 Jeronimo J, Castle PE, Temin S, Denny L, Gupta V, Kim JJ. et al. Secondary prevention and cervical cancer: ASCO resource-stratified clinical practice guideline. J Glob Oncol 2016; 3 (05) 635-657
- 9 Wright DJ. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: management [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Mar 28]. Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/cervical-intraepithelial-neoplasia-management?search=neoplasia%20intraepithelial%20cervical&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~131&usage_type=default&display_rank=1
- 10 Silva AN, Pimentel K, Martins MT, Silva AB, Lopes AC, Torrales MB. [Accuracy of vaginal cytology and colposcopy for the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in Cican-Bahia]. Rev Baiana Saúde Pública. 2017; 41 (02) 349-364 Portuguese
- 11 Lima TH, Lessa PR, Freitas LV, Teles LM, Aquino PS, Damasceno AK. et al. Analysis of the capacity of preventive diagnostic tests for cervical cancer. Acta Paul Enferm 2012; 25 (05) 673-678
- 12 Nkwabong E, Laure Bessi Badjan I, Sando Z. Pap smear accuracy for the diagnosis of cervical precancerous lesions. Trop Doct 2019; 49 (01) 34-39
- 13 Fonseca FV, Tomasich FD, Jung JE. [High-grade intraepithelial cervical lesions: evaluation of the factors determining an unfavorable outcome after conization]. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2011; 33 (11) 334-340 Portuguese
- 14 Rosa BR, Lisboa RB. [Quantitative analysis of new positive cervical oncoscopy in patients that were submitted to conization and its associated factors]. Rev Fac Med Teresópolis 2018; 2 (01) 3-22 . Available from: https://www.unifeso.edu.br/revista/index.php/faculdadedemedicinadeteresopolis/article/view/578/411
- 15 Loopik DL, IntHout J, Ebisch RMF, Melchers WJ, Massuger LF, Siebers AG. et al. The risk of cervical cancer after cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3: A population-based cohort study with 80,442 women. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 157 (01) 195-201
- 16 Carvalho NS, Foggiatto AI, Fonseca FV, Araújo NS, Maestri CA. A review of cervical cancer precursor lesions and recurrence after treatment: what are the real risk factors. J Gynecol Oncol 2020; 3 (02) 1029