Diagnostic value of colposcopy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2–3/carcinoma in situ and microinvasive cervical cancer

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of colposcopy for the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2–3/carcinoma in situ and microinvasive cervical cancer. Methods: Sensitivity, positive predictive value, and rate of false negative results of colposcopy were calculated in 718 patients with verified cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2–3/carcinoma in situ and microinvasive cervical cancer. Assessment was made after final histological verification referring to the estimated diagnosis at colposcopic examination based on International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy criteria. Results: A full agreement of colposcopic and morphological diagnosis was observed in 329 of 718 cases, resulting in a colposcopy sensitivity of 45.8% for the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2–3/carcinoma in situ and microinvasive cervical cancer. A type 3 transformation zone, dominant in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2–3/carcinoma in situ and microinvasive cervical cancer, regardless of age and neoplasia grade (observed in 81.3% of patients included in the study), and a high rate of acetowhite lesions that were not visible (36.6% of patients) limited the sensitivity of colposcopy and colposcopy-guided biopsy, resulting in underdiagnosis, even in young patients. The risk of underdiagnosis grew significantly in women older than 30 years because of the growing incidence of non-visible acetowhite lesions (p = 0.01). This study suggests that large loop excision of the transformation zone may be recommended as an optimal diagnostic procedure in women with high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)+ cytology, even in the absence of lesions at colposcopy. Conclusion: Colposcopy and colposcopy-guided biopsies are not always sensitive enough to assess maximal degree and even the presence of cervical neoplasia. This study suggests that large loop excision of the transformation zone may be recommended as an optimal diagnostic procedure in women with HSIL+ cytology, even in the absence of lesions at colposcopy.

Colposcopy; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2–3/carcinoma in situ; Microinva-sive cervical cancer; Type of transformation zone; False negative result

[1] McCredie MR, Sharples KJ, Paul C, Baranyai J, Medley G, Jones RW, et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet Oncology. 2008; 9: 425–434.

[2] Nayar R, Chhieng DC, Crothers B, Darragh TM, Davey DD, Eisenhut C, et al. Moving forward—the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors and beyond: implications and suggestions for laboratories. Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology. 2020; 9: 291–303.

[3] Massad LS, Jeronimo J, Katki HA, Schiffman M. The Accuracy of Colposcopic Grading for Detection of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2009; 13: 137–144.

[4] Brown BH, Tidy JA. The diagnostic accuracy of colposcopy—a review of research methodology and impact on the outcomes of quality assurance. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2019; 240: 182–186.

[5] Hu S, Zhang W, Li S, Li N, Huang M, Pan Q, et al. Pooled analysis on the necessity of random 4-quadrant cervical biopsies and endo-cervical curettage in women with positive screening but negative colposcopy. Medicine. 2017; 96: e6689.

[6] Pretorius RG, Belinson JL, Burchette RJ, Wu R, Qiao Y. Key Determinants of the Value of Random Cervical Biopsy at Colposcopy. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2019; 23: 241–247.

[7] Pretorius RG, Belinson JL, Burchette RJ, Hu S, Zhang X, Qiao Y. Regardless of skill, performing more biopsies increases the sensitivity of colposcopy. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2011; 15: 180–188.

[8] Zuchna C, Hager M, Tringler B, Georgoulopoulos A, Ciresa-Koenig A, Volgger B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of guided cervical biopsies: a prospective multicenter study comparing the histopathology of simultaneous biopsy and cone specimen. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2010; 203: 321.e1–321. e6.

[9] Sørbye SW, Arbyn M, Fismen S, Gutteberg TJ, Mortensen ES. HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing is more specific than cytology in post-colposcopy follow-up of women with negative cervical biopsy. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6: e26022.

[10] Bornstein J, Bentley J, Bösze P, Girardi F, Haefner H, Menton M, et al. 2011 colposcopic terminology of the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2012; 120: 166–172.

[11] Basu P, Sankaranarayanan R. Atlas of Colposcopy: Principles and Practice. 2017. Available at: https://screening.iarc.fr/atlascolpo.p hp (Accessed: 12 June 2020).

[12] Vallikad E, Siddartha PT, Kulkarni KA, Firtion C, Keswarpu P, Vajinepalli P, et al. Intra and Inter-Observer Variability of Trans-formation Zone Assessment in Colposcopy: a Qualitative and Quantitative Study. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2017; 11: XC04–XC06.

[13] Korolenkova LI, Ermilova VD. The role of cervical transforma-tional zone as an object of human papilloma virus oncogenic effect in cervical intraepithelial neoplasms and invasive cancer develop-ment. Arkhiv Patologii. 2011; 73: 33–37.

[14] Doorbar J, Griffin H. Refining our understanding of cervical neoplasia and its cellular origins. Papillomavirus Research. 2019; 7: 176–179.

[15] Kierkegaard O, Byralsen C, Hansen KC, Frandsen KH, Frydenberg M. Association between colposcopic findings and histology in cervical lesions: the significance of the size of the lesion. Gynecologic Oncology. 1995; 57: 66–71.

[16] Xiao FY, Wang Q, Zheng RL, Chen M, Su TT, Sui L. Diagnosis and treatment value of colposcopy and loop electrosurgical excision procedure in microinvasive cervical cancer: analysis of 135 cases. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2016; 51: 186–191.

[17] Pretorius RG, Belinson JL, Peterson P, Burchette RJ. Which Colposcopies should Include Endocervical Curettage? Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2015; 19: 278–281.

[18] Liu AH, Walker J, Gage JC, Gold MA, Zuna R, Dunn ST, et al. Di-agnosis of Cervical Precancers by Endocervical Curettage at Colposcopy of Women with Abnormal Cervical Cytology. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 130: 1218–1225.

[19] Müller K, Soergel P, Hillemanns P, Jentschke M. Accuracy of Colposcopically Guided Diagnostic Methods for the Detection of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia. Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde. 2016; 76: 182–187.

[20] Suzuki Y, Cho T, Mogami T, Yokota NR, Matsunaga T, Asai-Sato M, et al. Evaluation of endocervical curettage with conization in diagnosis of endocervical lesions. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2017; 43: 723–728.

[21] Driggers RW, Zahn CM. To ECC or not to ECC: the question remains. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America. 2008; 35: 583–97; viii.

[22] Cox JT, Schiffman M, Solomon D. Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2003; 188: 1406–1412.

[23] Chen Q, Du H, Pretorius RG, Wang C, Yang B, Wang G, et al. High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Detected by Colposcopy-Directed or Random Biopsy Relative to Age, Cytology, Human Papillomavirus 16, and Lesion Size. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2016; 20: 207–212.

[24] Wentzensen N, Walker JL, Gold MA, Smith KM, Zuna RE, Mathews C, et al. Multiple biopsies and detection of cervical cancer precursors at colposcopy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015; 33: 83–89.

[25] van der Marel J, van Baars R, Rodriguez A, Quint WGV, van de Sandt MM, Berkhof J, et al. The increased detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia when using a second biopsy at colposcopy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2014; 135: 201–207.