Comparison of Colposcopic Biopsy and Conization Results in Association with Overtreatment or Missed Diagnosis

Year 2022, Volume: 23 Issue: 2, 227 - 232, 30.06.2022

Alper Seyhan , Erhan Aktürk

Abstract

Objective: To compare pathological results of colposcopic biopsy and cold knife conization in association with overtreatment and missed diagnosis perspective.
Materials and Methods: The data of 72 patients who were referred to the gynecologic oncology clinic because of the presence of atypical cytology and/ or high-risk human papillomavirus and underwent colposcopic biopsy and cold knife conization were retrospectively analyzed. Cases with discordant results were examined, particularly in terms of overtreatment and missed diagnosis.
Results: Efficacy of colposcopic biopsy was evaluated; the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value was 95.7%, 48%, 77.5%, 85.7%, respectively. Fifty seven cases (79.2%) were consistent and 15 cases (20.8%) were inconsistent in histopathological findings between colposcopic biopsy and cold knife conization.
Conclusion: A satisfactory agreement was detected between colposcopic biopsy and cold knife conization pathologies. The reasons for the inconsistency between biopsy and excision results are; in addition to clinic and pathologic factors, clinicians are willing to use more surgical options because of the concern for missing a diagnosis of cervical cancer.

Keywords

Colposcopy , cold knife conization , missed diagnosis , overtreatment , cervical premalign lesions

References

• 1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1. 0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11.
• 2. Pagliusi SR, Aguado MT. Efficacy and other milestones for human papillomavirus vaccine introduction. Vaccine 2004; 23: 569-78.
• 3. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006; 367: 489-98.
• 4. Moss EL, Hadden P, Douce G, Jones PW, Arbyn M, Redman CW. Is the colposcopically directed punch biopsy a reliable diagnostic test in women with minor cytological lesions? J Low Genit Tract Dis 2012; 16: 421-6.
• 5. Barker B, Garcia F, Lozevski J, Warner J, Hatch K. The correlation between colposcopically directed cervical biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision procedure pathology and the effect of time on that agreement. Gynecol Oncol 2001; 82: 22-6.
• 6. Byrom J, Douce G, Jones PW, Tucker H, Millinship J, Dhar K, et al. Should punch biopsies be used when high-grade disease is suspected at initial colposcopic assessment? A prospective study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006; 16: 253-6.
• 7. Kahramanoglu I, Demirkiran F, Turan H, Bese T, Yilmaz N, Ilvan S, et al. The use of colposcopic punch biopsy in the management of abnormal cervical cytology: a 5-year retrospective audit. J Obstet Gynaecol 2019; 39: 110-4.
• 8. Noothong S, Inthasorn P, Warnnissorn M. Pathological discrepancy between colposcopic directed cervical biopsy and Loop Electrosurgical-Excision Procedures (LEEPs) in patients with biopsies proven high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 56: 628-31.
• 9. Diakomanolis E, Haidopoulos D, Chatzipapas I, Rodolakis A, Stefanidis K, Markaki S. Negative cone biopsies. A reappraisal. J Reprod Med 2003; 48: 617-21.
• 10. Ryu A, Nam K, Chung S, Kim J, Lee H, Koh E, et al. Absence of dysplasia in the excised cervix by a loop electrosurgical excision procedure in the treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Gynecol Oncol 2010; 21: 87-92.
• 11. Duesing N, Schwarz J, Choschzick M, Jaenicke F, Gieseking F, Issa R, et al. Assessment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) with colposcopic biopsy and efficacy of loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP). Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 286: 1549-54.
• 12. Li ZG, Qian de Y, Cen JM, Chen GD, Shu YH. Three-step versus “see-and-treat” approach in women with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in a low-resource country. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 106: 202-5.
• 13. Zhang L, Li Q, Zhao M, Jia L, Zhang Y. Discrepancies between biopsy-based and excision-based grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the important role of time between excision and biopsy. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2015; 34: 221-7.
• 14. Ruan Y, Liu M, Guo J, Zhao J, Niu S, Li F. Evaluation of the accuracy of colposcopy in detecting high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and cervical cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2020; 302: 1529-38.
• 15. Tatiyachonwiphut M, Jaishuen A, Sangkarat S, Laiwejpithaya S, Wongtiraporn W, Inthasorn P, et al. Agreement between colposcopic diagnosis and cervical pathology: Siriraj hospital experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 15: 423-6.
• 16. Pretorius RG, Zhang WH, Belinson JL, Huang MN, Wu LY, Zhang X, et al. Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 430-4.
• 17. Soutter WP, Diakomanolis E, Lyons D, Ghaem-Maghami S, Ajala T, Haidopoulos D, et al. Dynamic spectral imaging: improving colposcopy. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 1814-20.
• 18. Mitchell MF, Schottenfeld D, Tortolero-Luna G, Cantor SB, Richards-Kortum R. Colposcopy for the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91: 626-31.
• 19. Rodpenpear N, Pataradool K. The efficacy of modified Swede Colposcopic Index in prediction of high-grade lesion and cancer of cervix. J Gynecol Oncol 2019; 30: e78.
• 20. Demirkiran F, Kahramanoglu I, Turan H, Yilmaz N, Yurtkal A, Meseci E, et al. See and treat strategy by LEEP conization in patients with abnormal cervical cytology. Ginekol Pol 2017; 88: 349-54.
• 21. Ghaem-Maghami S, Sagi S, Majeed G, Soutter WP. Incomplete excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of treatment failure: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2007; 8: 985-93.
• 22. Chen Y, Lu H, Wan X, Lv W, Xie X. Factors associated with positive margins in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and postconization management. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 107: 107-10.