Analysis of one year follow-up of women with cervical cytology report of atypical squamous cells and the diagnostic role of high-risk HPV infection

Objective: To investigate the risk of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or greater disease in patients with cytology report of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or cannot exclude high-grade atypical squamous cells (ASC-H) in one year follow-up. Study design: Analysis of colposcopy-directed multiple cervical biopsies in all patients. Patients without CIN2 or greater diseases were tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA at the enrollment and at 12th month and followed up by cytology at the 6th and 12th month. Patients with repeated abnormal results were subjected to colposcopy-directed biopsy. Results: A total of 894 ASC-US and 101 ASC-H patients were enrolled. The rate of CIN2 or greater disease was 14.2% in ASC-US group and 46.5% in ASC-H group, at the first test respectively. A total of 65.0% of patients in ASC-US have completed the study and 47.5% repeatedly showed abnormal cytology, while the same rates in ASC-H were 62.7% and 50%. Only four cases were diagnosed with CIN2 in ASC-US group. The rate of HPV DNA becoming negative was 54.9% and 51.5% for ASC-US and ASC-H, respectively. Conclusions: The diagnosis rate of CIN2 or greater lesions in ASC-US and ASC-H patients was about 15% and 46.5%, respectively, within one year.

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Atypical squamous cell; HPV; Follow-up.

[1] Parkin D.M., Bray F., Ferlay J., Pisani P.: “Estimating the world cancer burden: globocan 2000”. Int. J. Cancer, 2001, 94, 153.

[2] Siemens F.C., Boon M.E., Kuypers J.C., Kok L.P.: “Population based cervical screening with a 5-year interval in The Netherlands. Stabilization of the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma and its precursor lesions in the screened population”. Acta Cytol., 2004, 48, 348.

[3] Pirog E.C., Erroll M., Harigopal M., Centeno B.A.: “Comparison of human papillomavirus DNA prevalence in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance subcategories as defined by the original Bethesda 1991 and the new Bethesda 2001 Systems”. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., 2004, 128, 527.

[4] Solomon D., Schiffman M.H., Tarone R.: “Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 2001, 93, 293.

[5] Manos M.M., Kinney W.K., Hurley L.B., Sherman M.E., ShiehNgai J., Kurman R.J. et al.: “Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results”. JAMA, 1999, 281, 1605.

[6] Srodon M., Parry Dilworth H., Ronnett B.M.: “Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: diagnostic performance, human papillomavirus testing, and follow-up results”. Cancer, 2006, 108, 32.

[7] Smith J.S., Lindsay L., Hoots B., Keys J., Franceschi S., Winer R. et al.: “Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and highgrade cervical lesions: a meta-analysis update”. Int. J. Cancer, 2007, 121, 621.

[8] National Cancer Institute Workshop: “The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnosis”. JAMA, 1989, 262, 931.

[9] Cox J.T., Lorincz A.T., Schiffman M.H., Sherman M.E., Cullen A., Kurman R.J.: “Human papillomavirus testing by hybrid capture appears to be useful in triaging women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 1995, 172, 946.

[10] Nygård J.F., Sauer T., Skjeldestad F.E., Skare G.B., Thoresen S.Ø.: “CIN2/3 and cervical cancer after an ASCUS pap smear. A 7-year, prospective study of the Norwegian population-based, coordinated screening program”. Acta Cytol., 2003, 47, 991.

[11] Selvaggi S.M.: “ASC-US and high-risk HPV testing: performance in daily clinical practice”. Diagn. Cytopathol., 2006, 34, 731.

[12] Solomon D., Davey D., Kurman R., Moriarty A., O’Connor D., Prey M. et al.: “The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology”. JAMA, 2002, 287, 2114.

[13] Wright T.C. Jr, Cox J.T., Massad L.S., Twiggs L.B., Wilkinson E.J.: “ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference: 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities”. J. Lower Genit. Tract. Dis., 2002, 6, 127.

[14] You K., Guo Y., Geng L., Qiao J.: “The risk of CIN II or greater in a one-year follow-up period in patients with ASC-H interpreted with cytology”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2010, 149, 215.

[15] Sherman M.E., Solomon D., Schiffman M., For the ALTS group: “Qualification of ASCUS. A comparison of equivocal LSIL and equivocal HSIL cervical cytology in the ASCUS LSIL triage study”. Am. J. Clin. Pathol., 2001, 116, 386.

[16] Selvaggi S.M.: “Reporting of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude a highgrade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) on cervical samples: is it significant?”. Diagn. Cytopathol., 2003, 29, 38.

[17] Kurman R.J., Henson D.E., Herbst A.L., Noller K.L., Schiffman M.H., for the 1992 National Cancer Institute Workshop: “Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology”. JAMA, 1994, 271, 1866.

[18] Stoler M.H., Schiffman M.: “Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytology and histologic interpretations. Realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study”. JAMA, 2001, 285, 1500.

[19] ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group: “Results of a randomized trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2003, 188, 1383.

[20] Sherman M.E., Schiffman M.H., Lorincz A.T., Manos M.M., Scott D.R., Kuman R.J. et al.: “Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology: correlation of cytopathologic diagnosis with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus types”. Am. J. Clin. Pathol., 1994, 102, 182.

[21] Pitman M.B., Cibas E.S., Powers C.N., Renshaw A.A., Frable W.J.: “Reducing or eliminating use of the category of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance decreases the diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou smear”. Cancer, 2002, 96, 128.

[22] Wright Jr T.C., Schiffman M., Solomon D., Cox J.T., Garcia F., Goldie S. et al.: “Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2004, 103, 304.

[23] Kim J.J., Wright T.C., Goldie S.J.: “Cost effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance”. JAMA, 2002, 287, 2382.

[24] You K., Liang X., Qin F., Guo Y., Geng L.: “High-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing and high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions”. Aust. N.Z.J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 2007, 47, 141.

[25] Cox J.T., Schiffman M., Solomon D.: “For the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. 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”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2003, 188, 1406.

[26] Pretorius R.G., Belinson J.L., Burchette R.J., Hu S., Zhang X., Qiao Y.L.: “Regardless of skill, performing more biopsies increases the sensitivity of colposcopy”. J. Low Genit. Tract. Dis., 2011, 15, 180.