Rosa Freudenreich1,2, Martin Weiss1, Tobias Engler1, Felix Neis1, Melanie Henes3. 1. Department of Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstraße 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 2. Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Department of Women's Health, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstraße 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. melanie.henes@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia during pregnancy poses a great challenge to the treating clinician and the patient. According to the current guidelines, watchful waiting during pregnancy can be justified. Only in cases of invasion, immediate treatment may be indicated. However, few data are available on the management of cervical dysplasia during pregnancy. Further research is important for counselling affected women. METHODS: Data of pregnant patients with suspected cervical dysplasia who presented to the University Women's Hospital Tübingen between 2008 and 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Colposcopic, cytologic, and histologic assessment was performed for diagnosis. Data on remission, persistence and progression of disease based on histologic and cytologic assessment and the mode of delivery were correlated. RESULTS: 142 patients were enrolled. Cytology at first presentation was PAPIII (-p/-g) in 7.0%, PAPIIID (IIID1/IIID2) in 38.7%, PAPIVa (-p/-g) in 50.0%, PAPIVb (-p) in 2.8%, and PAPV (-p) in 1.4%. All cases with suspected invasion were recorded at the initial presentation. Complete histological or cytological remission was observed in 24.4%, partial remission in 10.4%, persistence in 56.3%, and progression in 8.9%. In two cases (1.5%) progression to squamous cell carcinoma occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Watchful waiting for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia during pregnancy seems to be sufficient and oncologically safe. It is important to exclude invasion during pregnancy, to perform frequent colposcopic, cytologic and histologic examinations and to ensure a postpartum follow-up examination to initiate the treatment of high-grade lesions. Spontaneous delivery seems to be safe in patients with cervical dysplasia, Caesarean section is not indicated.
PURPOSE: The diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia during pregnancy poses a great challenge to the treating clinician and the patient. According to the current guidelines, watchful waiting during pregnancy can be justified. Only in cases of invasion, immediate treatment may be indicated. However, few data are available on the management of cervical dysplasia during pregnancy. Further research is important for counselling affected women. METHODS: Data of pregnant patients with suspected cervical dysplasia who presented to the University Women's Hospital Tübingen between 2008 and 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. Colposcopic, cytologic, and histologic assessment was performed for diagnosis. Data on remission, persistence and progression of disease based on histologic and cytologic assessment and the mode of delivery were correlated. RESULTS: 142 patients were enrolled. Cytology at first presentation was PAPIII (-p/-g) in 7.0%, PAPIIID (IIID1/IIID2) in 38.7%, PAPIVa (-p/-g) in 50.0%, PAPIVb (-p) in 2.8%, and PAPV (-p) in 1.4%. All cases with suspected invasion were recorded at the initial presentation. Complete histological or cytological remission was observed in 24.4%, partial remission in 10.4%, persistence in 56.3%, and progression in 8.9%. In two cases (1.5%) progression to squamous cell carcinoma occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Watchful waiting for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia during pregnancy seems to be sufficient and oncologically safe. It is important to exclude invasion during pregnancy, to perform frequent colposcopic, cytologic and histologic examinations and to ensure a postpartum follow-up examination to initiate the treatment of high-grade lesions. Spontaneous delivery seems to be safe in patients with cervical dysplasia, Caesarean section is not indicated.
Authors: J M Walboomers; M V Jacobs; M M Manos; F X Bosch; J A Kummer; K V Shah; P J Snijders; J Peto; C J Meijer; N Muñoz Journal: J Pathol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: John Doorbar; Wim Quint; Lawrence Banks; Ignacio G Bravo; Mark Stoler; Tom R Broker; Margaret A Stanley Journal: Vaccine Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: J Peto; C Gilham; J Deacon; C Taylor; C Evans; W Binns; M Haywood; N Elanko; D Coleman; R Yule; M Desai Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-08-31 Impact factor: 7.640