Management of Abnormal Cytology

  • Fredric WillmottEmail author
  • Samuel George Oxley
  • Tony Hollingworth


Introduction: This chapter will discuss the indications and management of abnormal cervical cytology. This chapter draws on guidelines from the USA, the UK, Canada and Europe.

Article: Cancer of the uterine cervix is the most common gynaecological malignancy worldwide, and effective screening has been shown to reduce its incidence and prevalence. The scope of cervical cytological results is discussed with management indications, contraindications and exceptions. The cytological management depends on the triaging of patients into either low-risk or high-risk groups, indicating return to routine screening or a referral for diagnostics. The colposcopic management of such results will be discussed in a later chapter.

Summary: Cervical cytology has been proven to be a very useful test to detect and triage patients with preinvasive conditions. Many regions and/or countries have local guidelines, but there are similarities and a general consensus in management. Primary HPV screening has proven to be effective and in some regions will replace primary cytological screening.


Cervical cytology Borderline Low-grade High-grade dyskaryosis Atypical squamous cells Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) Glandular (1) HPV (human papillomavirus) Pregnancy Carcinoma in situ neoplasia (CIN) Cancer 


  1. 1.
    Jones H, Rock J. Te Linde’s operative gynecology. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Courtesy of Andreas Wessel-Therhorn.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shafi M, Nazeer S. Colposcopy: a practical guide. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bentley J. Colposcopic management of abnormal cervical cytology and histology. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34:1188–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Massad L, Einstein M, Huh W, Katki H, Kinney W, Schiffman M, et al. 2012 update consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:829–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Public Health England. NHS cervical screening programme: colposcopy and programme management. London: Public Health England; 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fadare O, Ghofrani M, Chacho M, et al. The significance of benign endometrial cells in cervicovaginal smears. Adv Anat Pathol. 2005;12(5):274–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson S, Wadehra V. How predictive is a cervical smear suggesting invasive squamous cell carcinoma? Cytopathology. 2001;12:144–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moss S, Gibney A. HPV primary screening pilots: evaluation report to the national screening committee. London: Centre for cancer prevention, Wolfson institute, Queen Mary University of London; 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jo’s cervical cancer trust. HPV primary screening. 2017. Accessed Dec 2017.
  11. 11.
    Szarewski A, Cadman L, Mesher D, Austin J, Ashdown-Barr L, Edwards R, et al. HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:915–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sasieni P, Castanon A, Landy R, Kyrgiou M, Kitchener H, Quigley M, et al. Risk of preterm birth following surgical treatment for cervical disease: executive summary of a recent symposium. BJOG. 2016;123(9):1426–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Willmott F, Ritchie S, Chenoy R. Key questions on cervical cancer. Pulse Magazine. 5/11/2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredric Willmott
    • 1
    Email author
  • Samuel George Oxley
    • 1
  • Tony Hollingworth
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Women’s HealthWhipps Cross University HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of GynaecologyBarts Health NHS TrustLondonUK
  3. 3.Centre for Cancer PreventionWolfson Institute for Preventive Medicine, QMULLondonUK

Personalised recommendations