OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of cytologic screening in pregnancy through routine colposcopy and to confirm the safety of conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: In total, 3,658 pregnant women, screened for cervical cancer with either cytology or colposcopy, were prospectively evaluated. Patients with abnormal findings underwent colposcopically directed biopsy and, in case of CIN, repeat cytology and colposcopy. Biopsy was repeated in case of suspected progression of the lesion. Suspected microinvasion was the only reason for diagnostic conization during pregnancy. After delivery, excisional treatment provided a final specimen from all patients. Diagnostic methods were compared. RESULTS: Comparison between cytology and colposcopy showed 97.1% concordance with a few false positives (2.5%) and false negatives (0.2%). Abnormal cytology and colposcopy, as compared with histology, showed similar concordances, but the risk of underestimation by cytology was significantly higher (P < .05). Initial and final histology of the 63 cases of CIN and microinvasive carcinoma showed 88.9% concordance. Progression of the lesion was not observed. CONCLUSION: These data do not justify combined use of cytology and colposcopy to improve screening for cervical cancer in pregnancy. Delayed treatment of CIN after delivery is safe.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of cytologic screening in pregnancy through routine colposcopy and to confirm the safety of conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: In total, 3,658 pregnant women, screened for cervical cancer with either cytology or colposcopy, were prospectively evaluated. Patients with abnormal findings underwent colposcopically directed biopsy and, in case of CIN, repeat cytology and colposcopy. Biopsy was repeated in case of suspected progression of the lesion. Suspected microinvasion was the only reason for diagnostic conization during pregnancy. After delivery, excisional treatment provided a final specimen from all patients. Diagnostic methods were compared. RESULTS: Comparison between cytology and colposcopy showed 97.1% concordance with a few false positives (2.5%) and false negatives (0.2%). Abnormal cytology and colposcopy, as compared with histology, showed similar concordances, but the risk of underestimation by cytology was significantly higher (P < .05). Initial and final histology of the 63 cases of CIN and microinvasive carcinoma showed 88.9% concordance. Progression of the lesion was not observed. CONCLUSION: These data do not justify combined use of cytology and colposcopy to improve screening for cervical cancer in pregnancy. Delayed treatment of CIN after delivery is safe.