Michelle J Khan1, L Stewart Massad2, Walter Kinney3, Michael A Gold4, E J Mayeaux5, Teresa M Darragh6, Philip E Castle7, David Chelmow8, Herschel W Lawson9, Warner K Huh10. 1. Division of Women's Reproductive Healthcare, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA. Electronic address: mjkhan@uabmc.edu. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Department of Women's Health, The Permanente Medical Group, Sacramento, CA, USA. 4. Tulsa Cancer Institute, University of Oklahoma, School of Community Medicine, Tulsa, OK, USA. 5. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, SC, USA. 6. Department of Clinical Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 9. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 10. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Vaginal cancer is an uncommon cancer of the lower genital tract, and standardized screening is not recommended. Risk factors for vaginal cancer include a history of other lower genital tract neoplasia or cancer, smoking, immunosuppression, and exposure to diethylstilbestrol in utero. Although cervical cancer screening after total hysterectomy for benign disease is not recommended, many women inappropriately undergo vaginal cytology and/or human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests, and clinicians are faced with managing their abnormal results. Our objective is to review the literature on vaginal cytology and hrHPV testing and to develop guidance for the management of abnormal vaginal screening tests. METHODS: An electronic search of the PubMed database through 2015 was performed. Articles describing vaginal cytology or vaginal hrHPV testing were reviewed, and diagnostic accuracy of these tests when available was noted. RESULTS: The available literature was too limited to develop evidence-based recommendations for managing abnormal vaginal cytology and hrHPV screening tests. However, the data did show that 1) the risk of vaginal cancer in women after hysterectomy is extremely low, justifying the recommendation against routine screening, and 2) in women for whom surveillance is recommended, e.g. women post-treatment for cervical precancer or cancer, hrHPV testing may be useful in identification of vaginal cancer precursors. CONCLUSION: Vaginal cancer is rare, and asymptomatic low-risk women should not be screened. An algorithm based on expert opinion is proposed for managing women with abnormal vaginal test results.
OBJECTIVE:Vaginal cancer is an uncommon cancer of the lower genital tract, and standardized screening is not recommended. Risk factors for vaginal cancer include a history of other lower genital tract neoplasia or cancer, smoking, immunosuppression, and exposure to diethylstilbestrol in utero. Although cervical cancer screening after total hysterectomy for benign disease is not recommended, many women inappropriately undergo vaginal cytology and/or human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests, and clinicians are faced with managing their abnormal results. Our objective is to review the literature on vaginal cytology and hrHPV testing and to develop guidance for the management of abnormal vaginal screening tests. METHODS: An electronic search of the PubMed database through 2015 was performed. Articles describing vaginal cytology or vaginal hrHPV testing were reviewed, and diagnostic accuracy of these tests when available was noted. RESULTS: The available literature was too limited to develop evidence-based recommendations for managing abnormal vaginal cytology and hrHPV screening tests. However, the data did show that 1) the risk of vaginal cancer in women after hysterectomy is extremely low, justifying the recommendation against routine screening, and 2) in women for whom surveillance is recommended, e.g. women post-treatment for cervical precancer or cancer, hrHPV testing may be useful in identification of vaginal cancer precursors. CONCLUSION:Vaginal cancer is rare, and asymptomatic low-risk women should not be screened. An algorithm based on expert opinion is proposed for managing women with abnormal vaginal test results.
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Mona Saraiya; Elizabeth R Unger; Trevor D Thompson; Charles F Lynch; Brenda Y Hernandez; Christopher W Lyu; Martin Steinau; Meg Watson; Edward J Wilkinson; Claudia Hopenhayn; Glenn Copeland; Wendy Cozen; Edward S Peters; Youjie Huang; Maria Sibug Saber; Sean Altekruse; Marc T Goodman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Janet R Daling; Margaret M Madeleine; Stephen M Schwartz; Katherine A Shera; Joseph J Carter; Barbara McKnight; Peggy L Porter; Denise A Galloway; James K McDougall; Hisham Tamimi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; M Concepcion Bratti; Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero; Martha L Hutchinson; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Sholom Wacholder; Mark E Sherman; Hortense Kendall; Raphael P Viscidi; Jose Jeronimo; John E Schussler; Robert D Burk Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2004-07-02 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Wui-Jin Koh; Benjamin E Greer; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Sachin M Apte; Susana M Campos; John Chan; Kathleen R Cho; David Cohn; Marta Ann Crispens; Nefertiti DuPont; Patricia J Eifel; David K Gaffney; Robert L Giuntoli; Ernest Han; Warner K Huh; John R Lurain; Lainie Martin; Mark A Morgan; David Mutch; Steven W Remmenga; R Kevin Reynolds; William Small; Nelson Teng; Todd Tillmanns; Fidel A Valea; Nicole R McMillian; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Margaret R E McCredie; Katrina J Sharples; Charlotte Paul; Judith Baranyai; Gabriele Medley; Ronald W Jones; David C G Skegg Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jennifer S Smith; Danielle M Backes; Brooke E Hoots; Robert J Kurman; Jeanne M Pimenta Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Ahmed Alrajjal; Vaishali Pansare; Moumita Saha Roy Choudhury; Mir Yousufuddin Ali Khan; Vinod B Shidham Journal: Cytojournal Date: 2021-07-17 Impact factor: 2.091