Uterine Cervix

  • Donna M. Coffey
  • Ibrahim Ramzy
Part of the Frozen Section Library book series (FROZEN, volume 11)


Intraoperative consultation is often sought for specimens from the cervix. Almost all consultations are related to cervical carcinoma, the sixth most common solid malignancy among women in the United States. Some specimens are submitted for gross consultation only, but the majority requires frozen section examination to assess the presence and extent of malignancy (Table 4.1). In approximately 70% of patients with cervical cancer, the disease is limited to the cervix. The diagnosis is initially established usually by a punch biopsy. Patients with pre-invasive disease (FIGO Stage 0) and patients with superficial invasion (FIGO Stage IA) who desire to preserve fertility can be treated with limited procedures, including loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) excision and conization. Some modalities, such as cryosurgery and laser vaporization, destroy the tissue, and no samples are submitted for intraoperative consultation by frozen section. Advanced stages of malignancies require more extensive surgical resections to include, in addition to the cervix, the uterine body, and often both tubes and ovaries, while others are treated with radiation and/or chemotherapy.


Cervical Cancer Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma Radical Hysterectomy Permanent Section Verrucous Carcinoma 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson WA, Leiser R, Taylor PT, Thorton Jr WN. The Frozen section ­analysis of conization. A reappraisal of the ends and means. Diagn Gynecol Obstet. 1982;4:251–4.Google Scholar
  2. Baker P, Oliva E. A practical approach to intraoperative consultation in gynecological pathology. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2008;27:353–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedet JL, Anderson GH. Stage IA carcinoma of the cervix revisited. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:1052–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berek JS, Hacker NF, editors. Berek & Hacker’s practical gynecologic oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. Bosch FX, de Sanjose S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer-burden and assessment of causality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2003;31:3–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chenevert J, Tetu B, Plante M, et al. Indication and method of frozen section in vaginal radical trachelectomy. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2009;28:480–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clements PB, Young RH. Atlas of gynecologic surgical pathology. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Crum CP, Nucci MR, Lee KR, editors. Diagnostic gynecologic and obstetric pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2011.Google Scholar
  9. DiSaia PJ, Creasman WT. Clinical gynecologic oncology. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby-Elsevier; 2007.Google Scholar
  10. Fanfani F, Ludovisi M, Zannoni GF, et al. Frozen section examination of ­pelvic lymph nodes in endometrial and cervical cancer: accuracy in patients submitted to neoadjuvant treatments. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94:779–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giuntoli RL, Winburn KA, Silverman B, et al. Frozen section evaluation of cervical cold knife cone specimens is accurate in the diagnosis of microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91:280–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gu M, Lin F. Efficacy of cone biopsy of the uterine cervix during frozen ­section for the evaluation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122:383–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hannigan EV, Simpson JS, Dillard EA, Dinh TV. Frozen section evaluation of cervical conization specimens. J Reprod Med. 1986;31:11–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hasenburg A et al. Evaluation of lymph nodes in squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: touch imprint cytology versus frozen section histology. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1999;9:337–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoffman MS, Collins E, Roberts WS, et al. Cervical conization with frozen section before planned hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82:394–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoskins W, Perez CA, Young RC. Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott William & Wilkins; 2000.Google Scholar
  17. Ismiil N, Ghorab Z, Covens A, et al. Intraoperative margin assessment of the radical trachelectomy specimen. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:42–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaufman RH. Frozen section evaluation of the cervical conization specimen. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1967;10:838–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lecuru F, Neji K, Robin F, et al. Microinvasive carcinoma of the cervix: rationale for conservative treatment in early squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1997;18:465–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Neiger R, Bailey SA, Wall 3rd AM, et al. Evaluating cervical cone biopsy specimens with frozen sections at hysterectomy. J Reprod Med. 1991;36:103–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Noriaki S, Chikara S, Naoki T, et al. Incidence and distribution pattern of pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with Stage IB, IIA and IIB cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer. 1999;85:1547–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nucci MR, Oliva E. Gynecologic pathology. London: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2009 (volume in the series foundations in diagnostic pathology).Google Scholar
  23. Nucci MR. Symposium part III: tumor-like glandular lesions of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2002;21:347–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Östör AG, Duncan A, Quinn M, Rome R. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: an experience with 100 cases. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;79:207–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park K, Oslow R, Sonoda Y. Frozen section evaluation of cervical adenocarcinoma at time of radical trachelectomy: pathologic pitfalls and the application of an objective scoring system. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110:316–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rojat-Habib MC, Cravello L, Bretelle F, et al. Value of endocervical margin examination of conization specimens. Prospective study conducted on 150 patients. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2000;28:929–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robboy SJ, Anderson MC, Russell P. Pathology of the female reproductive tract. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2002.Google Scholar
  28. Sakuragi N, Satoh C, Takeda N, et al. Incidence and distribution pattern of pelvic and paraaortic lymph node metastasis in patients with Stage IB, IIA and IIB cervical carcinoma treated with radical hysterectomy. Cancer. 1999;85:1547–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rock JA, Johns III HW. TeLinde’s operative gynecology. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott William & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar
  30. Torres JE, Moorman J, Shiu A, Gyer D. Colposcopically directed conization for frozen section examination in the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Reprod Med. 1983;28:123–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Van den Tillaart SAHM, Trimbos JBMZ, Dreef EJ, et al. Patterns of parametrial involvement in radical hysterectomy specimens of cervical cancer patients. Internat J Gynecol Pathol. 2011;30:185–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Woodford HD, Poston W, Elkins TE. Reliability of the frozen section in sharp knife cone biopsy of the cervix. J Reprod Med. 1986;31:951–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Zaino RJ, Ward S, Delgado G, et al. Histopathologic predictor of the behavior of surgically treated stage IB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. A gynecologic oncology group study. Cancer. 1992;69:1750–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pathology and Genomic Medicine The Methodist HospitalWeill Medical College of Cornell UniversityHoustonUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations