| Literature DB >> 34737649 |
Yanyun Li1, Ying-Xin Gong1, Qing Wang1, Shujun Gao1, Hongwei Zhang1, Feng Xie1, Qing Cong1, Limei Chen1, Qi Zhou1, Zubei Hong2, Lihua Qiu2, Fang Li3, Yu Xie1, Long Sui1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Early-stage cervical cancer is usually diagnosed by colposcopy-directed biopsy (CDB) and/or endocervical curettage (ECC), but some neglected lesions must be detected by conization because they are occult. This study aimed to explore the optimal method for detecting these "occult" cervical cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1299 patients who were high-risk for early-stage cervical cancer from five centres in China were prospectively included. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of cytology, HPV testing, colposcopy and CDB&ECC for detecting "occult" cervical cancer and discussed the diagnostic importance of transformation zone (TZ) type, conization length and the proportion of cervical cone excision.Entities:
Keywords: cervical conization; colposcopy-directed biopsy; high-grade intraepithelial lesion; length proportion; occult cervical cancer; transformation zone
Year: 2021 PMID: 34737649 PMCID: PMC8558636 DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S329129
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Womens Health ISSN: 1179-1411
Figure 1Clinical characteristics of the enrolled patients. (A) Age distribution. (B) Cytology result. (C) HPV infection status. (D) Distribution of transformation zone type.
Correlation Between Colposcopy Impression, CDB&ECC and Conization
| Histopathological Diagnosis of Conization | Total | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Inflammation | LSIL | HSIL | IA1 | IA2 | IB1 | |||
| Colposcopy Impression | Normal | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Inflammation | 0 | 9 | 7 | 57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 73 | |
| LSIL | 1 | 17 | 24 | 126 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 170 | |
| HSIL | 1 | 85 | 130 | 803 | 26 | 1 | 2 | 1048 | |
| Cancer | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | |
| Total | 2 | 112 | 161 | 991 | 28 | 1 | 3 | 1298 | |
| CDB&ECC | Normal | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Inflammation | 0 | 4 | 3 | 39 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 46 | |
| LSIL | 0 | 11 | 37 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 94 | |
| HSIL | 1 | 94 | 113 | 839 | 17 | 1 | 2 | 1067 | |
| MIC | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 16 | |
| Cancer | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Total | 2 | 111 | 154 | 933 | 25 | 1 | 3 | 1229 | |
Note: IA1, IA2, IB1, cervical cancer staging based on FIGO 2018.
Abbreviations: LSIL, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; HSIL, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; MIC, microinvasive cancer; CDB, colposcopy-directed biopsy; ECC, endocervical curettage.
Diagnostic Value of Cytology Under Different Criteria in Detecting Pathologic Cervical Cancer
| Cytology Cut-Off | Sensitivity | Specificity | Youden Index | Cohen’s κ Coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASC-US+ | 66.67% | 29.18% | −0.042 | −0.004 (P=0.562) |
| LSIL+ | 50.00% | 52.66% | 0.027 | 0.004 (P=0.735) |
| ASC-H+ | 45.24% | 68.44% | 0.137 | 0.030 (P=0.063) |
| HSIL+ | 30.95% | 80.13% | 0.111 | 0.036 (P=0.080) |
| Cancer | 4.76% | 99.71% | 0.045 | 0.078 (P=0.014) |
Abbreviations: ASC-US, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; LSIL, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; ASC-H, atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude HSIL; HSIL, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.
Detailed Results of the “Three-Step” Screening Procedure of Occult Cervical Cancer Patients
| NO. | Cytology | HPV | Colposcopy | CDB&ECC | TZ Type | Length of Cervix (cm) | Length of Cervical Cone Excision (cm) | Conization Histopathology | FIGO Stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NILM | 16 | HSIL | HSIL | 1 | 1.3 | 0.8 | MIC | IA1 |
| 2 | NILM | 18 | HSIL | HSIL | 2 | 1.2 | 0.7 | MIC | IA1 |
| 3 | NILM | 16 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 1.5 | 0.7 | MIC | IA1 |
| 4 | NILM | 16 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 1.5 | 0.8 | MIC | IA1 |
| 5 | NILM | 16 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 1.5 | 0.8 | MIC | IA1 |
| 6 | ASC-US | 18 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 1.3 | 0.8 | MIC | IA1 |
| 7 | ASC-US | 16,18 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 1.0 | 0.9 | MIC | IA1 |
| 8 | LSIL | 16,53 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 1.3 | 0.8 | MIC | IA1 |
| 9 | ASC-H | 16 | HSIL | HSIL | 1 | 1.5 | 0.9 | MIC | IA1 |
| 10 | ASC-H | 28 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 1.2 | 0.7 | MIC | IA1 |
| 11 | ASC-H | 33,58 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 3.7 | 1.9 | MIC | IA1 |
| 12 | HSIL | 35 | HSIL | HSIL | 1 | 1.3 | 0.8 | MIC | IA1 |
| 13 | HSIL | 16,58 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 1.5 | 1.0 | MIC | IA1 |
| 14 | HSIL | 16 | LSIL | HSIL | 3 | 1.5 | 0.8 | MIC | IA1 |
| 15 | HSIL | 35 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 1.4 | 0.8 | MIC | IA1 |
| 16 | HSIL | 33 | Cancer | HSIL | 3 | 1.5 | 0.7 | MIC | IA1 |
| 17 | HSIL | 33 | HSIL | HSIL | 1 | 3.8 | 1.5 | MIC | IA1 |
| 18 | Cancer | 16 | Cancer | HSIL | 3 | 3.4 | 2.0 | MIC | IA1 |
| 19 | NILM | 16,39 | LSIL | HSIL | 3 | 4.4 | 1.8 | IC | IB1 |
| 20 | ASC-US | 18,33 | HSIL | HSIL | 3 | 2.6 | 1.8 | IC | IB1 |
Note: IA1, IB1, cervical cancer staging based on FIGO 2018.
Abbreviations: NILM, negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy; ASC-US, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; LSIL, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; ASC-H, atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude HSIL; HSIL, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; HPV, human papillomavirus; CDB, colposcopy-directed biopsy; ECC, endocervical curettage; TZ, transformation zone; MIC, microinvasive cancer; IC, invasive cancer; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Figure 2Binary logistic regression results to identify risk factors for HSIL+ patients.
Figure 3(A) Distribution of the transformation zone in patients with different grades of cervical lesions. (B) Difference in length proportion of cervical cone excision between cervical cancer patients and HSIL patients. *Significant difference between two groups (P < 0.05). (C) ROC curve of the length proportion of cervical cone excision in detecting cervical cancer.