Rates of regression of cervical dysplasia between initial biopsy and excisional procedure in routine clinical practice
- 102 Downloads
To determine rates and factors associated with regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 + between colposcopic biopsy and therapeutic excisional procedure in standard practice.
A retrospective chart review was performed for women undergoing a cervical excisional procedure for CIN 2 + at clinics at three academic institutions over a 3-year period. Cytology, histology, patient age and time-to-excision were analyzed to determine factors influencing rates of regression.
Of 356 women undergoing excision for CIN 2 + on colposcopic biopsy, 91 (25.3%) of final pathology diagnoses displayed clinically significant regression. Age and time-to-excision were not associated with regression, but referral cytology and severity of initial biopsy histology were, with ASC-H (aOR 0.1, CI 0.03, 0.8) and CIN 3/AIS (aOR 0.4, CI 0.2, 0.7) being less likely to regress than less severe lesions.
Disease severity by referral cytology or diagnostic biopsy, as opposed to age or length of time-to-excision, is likely the most relevant factor in determination of regression for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women undergoing excisional treatment for biopsy-confirmed CIN2 +.
KeywordsSquamous intraepithelial lesions Human papillomavirus Spontaneous neoplasm regression Colposcopy Pap test
KM: project development, data collection, manuscript writing. AF: project development, data collection, manuscript editing. HH: project development, data analysis. ML-A: project development, manuscript editing. AB: data collection, manuscript editing. JE: data collection. OS: data collection. PG: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing.
The authors have no funding to disclose.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
- 1.National Cancer Institute (2018) SEER cancer stat facts: cervical cancer. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html. Accessed Mar 7 2018
- 2.Trimble CL, Piantadosi S, Gravitt P, Ronnett B, Pizer E, Elko A, Wilqus B, Yutzy W, Daniel R, Shah K, Peng S, Hung C, Roden R, Wu TC, Pardoll D (2005) Sponataneous regression of high-grade cervical dysplasia: effects of human papillomavirus type and HLA phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 11:4717–4723. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Tainio K, Athanasiou A, Tikkinen K, Aaltonen R, Cardenas J, Hernandes Glazer-Livson S, Jakobsson M, Joronen K, Kiviharju M, Louvanto K, Oksjoki S, Tahtinen R, Virtanen S, Nieminen P, Kyrfiou M, Kalliala I (2018) Clincial course of untreated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 under active surveillance: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 27(360):k499. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Willan A, Chan B, Howell L (1998) Natural history of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 92:727–735 (PMID:9764690)Google Scholar
- 7.Samson SL, Bentley JR, Fahey TJ, McKay DJ, Gill GH (2005) The effect of loop electrosurgical excision procedure on future pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 105:325–332. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000151991.09124.bb CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Kyrgiou M, Athanasiou A, Paraskevaidi M, Mitra A, Kalliala I, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Bennett P, Paraskevaidis E (2016) Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 28(354):i3633. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Nasiell K, Nasiell M, Vaclavinkova V (1983) Behavior of moderate cervical dysplasia during long-term follow up. Obstet Gynecol 61:609–614 (PMID:6835614)Google Scholar
- 13.Dalla Palma P, Giorgi Rossi P, Collina G, Buccoliero AM, Ghiringhello B, Gilioli E, Onnis GL, Aldovini D, Galanti G, Casadei G, Aldi M, Gomes VV, Giubilato P, Ronco G, NTCC Pathology Group (2009) The reproducibility of CIN diagnoses among different pathologists: data from histology reviews from a multicenter randomized study. Am J Clin Pathol 132(1):125–132. https://doi.org/10.1309/ajcpbrk7d1yiuwfp CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Castle P, Stoler M, Solomon D, Schiffman M (2007) The relationship of community biopsy-diagnosed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 to the quality control pathology-reviewed diagnoses: an ALTS report. Am J Clin Pathol 127:805–815. https://doi.org/10.1309/PT3PNC1QL2F4D2VL CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Carreon J, Sherman M, Guillen D, Solomon D, Herrero R, Jeronimo J, Wacholder S, Rodriguez AC, Morales J, Hutchinson M, Burk RD, Schiffman M (2007) CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3: results from a histological review of population based cervical samples. Int J Gynecol Pathol 26:441–446. https://doi.org/10.1097/pgp.0b013e31805152ab CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Grimm C, Polterauer S, Natter C, Rahhal J, Hefler L, Tempfer CB, Heinze G, Stary G, Reinthaller A, Speiser P (2012) Treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with topical imiquomid: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120:152–159. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31825bc6e8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Rader JS, Sill MW, Beume JH, Lankes HA, Benbrook DM, Garcia F, Trinble C, Tate Thigpen J, Lieberman R, Zuna RE, Leath CA, Spirtos NM, Byron J, Thaker PH, Lele S, Alberts D (2017) A stratified randomized double-blind phase II trial of celecoxib for treating patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the potential predictive value of VEGF serum levels: an NRG oncology/gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol 145(2):291–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.02.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Massad L, Einstein M, Huh W, Katki H, Kinney W, Schiffman M, Solomon D, Wentzensen N, Lawson H, for the 2012 ASCCP consensus guidelines conference (2012) 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tact Dis 17:S1–S27. https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0b013e318287d329 Google Scholar
- 20.Sykes P, Innes C, Harker D, Whitehead M, van der Griend R, Lawton B, Hibma M, Fitzergald P, Dudley N, Petrich S, Faherty J, Bergzoll C, Eva L, Parker C, Sadler L, Simcock B (2016) Observational management of CIN 2 in young women: a prospective multicenter trial. J Low Genit Tract Dis 20(4):343–347. https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Waxman A, Chelmow D, Darragh T, Herschel L, Moscicki A (2012) Revised terminology for cervical histopathology and its implications for management of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 120:1465–1471. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827001d5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Darragh T, Colgan T, Cox J, Heller D, Henry M, Luff R, McCalmont T, Nayar R, Palefsky JM, Stoler MH, Wilkinson EJ, Zaino RJ, Wilbur DC, Members of the LAST Project Work Groups (2012) The lower anogenital squamous terminology standardization project for HPV-associated pathologists and the american society for colposcopy and cervical pathology. J Low Genit Tract Dis 16:205–242. https://doi.org/10.1097/lgt.0b013e31825c31dd CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Matthews T, Hamilton B (2016). Mean age of mothers on the rise: United States 2000–2014, centers for disease control and prevention, national center for health statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db232.htm. Accessed Feb 25 2018
- 27.Goodman MT, Shvetsov YB, McDuffie K, Wilkens LR, Zhu X, Thompson PJ, Ning L, Kileen J, Kamemoto L, Hernandez BY (2008) Prevalence, acquisition and clearance of cervical human papillomavirus infection among women with normal cytology: hawaii human papillomavirus cohort study. Cancer Res 68:8813–8824. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar