Evaluation of the relationship between Doppler predictors with human papillomavirus types, smear and cervical biopsy results

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 5, 583 - 588, 04.09.2022

Anıl Turhan Çakır , Aydan Arslan

https://doi.org/10.18621/eurj.1022192

Abstract

Objectives: The study aims to investigate whether there is any difference between human papillomavirus (HPV) types, smear results, and colposcopic biopsy results in terms of iliac, uterine, and cervical artery pulsatility and resistive index values in high-risk HPV positive patients.

Methods: Iliac, uterine, and cervical artery pulsatility and resistive index values were determined by pelvic Doppler ultrasonography in patients who applied for high-risk HPV positivity and underwent colposcopyguided cervical biopsy. 

Results: There was no difference between HPV types and Pap-smear results and the pulsatility and resistive indices of the iliac artery, uterine artery, and cervical artery. It was observed that the mean cervical artery pulsatility index of the patients whose colposcopic cervical biopsy result was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 was 1.61 ± 0.43 and the cervical artery pulsatility index of the patients with CIN 2-3 was 1.15 ± 0.28, and a statistically significant difference was found between them (p = 0.038). There was no difference between other Doppler indices and colposcopic cervical biopsy results. 

Conclusions: Doppler indices such as cervical artery pulsatility index may be helpful in the evaluation of cervical cancer precursor lesions.

Keywords

Doppler ultrasonography, human papilloma virus, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, Pap smear

References

• 1. Bruni L, Albero G, Serrano B, Mena M, Collado JJ, Gómez D, et al. ICO/IARC Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases in the World. Summary Report 22 October 2021. [Date Accessed].
• 2. de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany L, Geraets DT, Klaustermeier JE, Lloveras B, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:1048-56.
• 3. Onuki M, Matsumoto K, Iwata T, Yamamoto K, Aoki Y, Maenohara S, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype contribution to cervical cancer and precancer: Implications for screening and vaccination in Japan. Cancer Sci 2020;111:2546-57.
• 4. Lugano R, Ramachandran M, Dimberg A. Tumor angiogenesis: causes, consequences, challenges and opportunities. Cell Mol Life Sci 2020;77:1745-70.
• 5. Ravazoula P, Zolora V, Hatjicondi O, Sakellaropoulos G, Kourounis G, Maragoudakis ME. Assessment of angiogenesis in human cervical lesions. Anticancer Res 1996;16:3861-64.
• 6. Kurmyshkina O, Kovchur P, Schegoleva L, Volkano T. Markers of angiogenesis, lymphangiogenesis, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (plasticity) in CIN and early invasive carcinoma of the cervix: exploring putative molecular mechanisms involved in early tumor invasion. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:6515.
• 7. Yetkin-Arik B, Kastelein AW, Klaassen I, Jansen CHJR, Latul Y, Vittori M, et al. Angiogenesis in gynecological cancers and the options for anti-angiogenesis therapy. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer 2021;1875:188446.
• 8. Ramesh A, Chander RV, Srinivasan C, Vengadassalapathy S. Prevalence of angiogenesis, proliferation, and apoptosis markers of cervical cancer and their correlation with clinicopathological parameters. J Oncol 2020;2020:8541415.
• 9. Obermair A, Wanner C, Bilgi S, Speiser P, Kaider A, Reinethaller A, al. Tumor angiogenesis in stage IB cervical cancer: correlation of microvessel density with survival. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:314-9.
• 10. Sehgal N. Efficacy of color doppler ultrasonography in differentiation of ovarian masses. J Midlife Health 2019;10:22-8.
• 11. Rajabi M, Mousa SA. The role of angiogenesis in cancer treatment. Biomedicines 2017;5:34.
• 12. Katayama Y, Uchino J, Chihara Y, Tamiya N, Kaneko Y, Yamada T, et al. Tumor neovascularization and developments in therapeutics. Cancers (Basel) 2019;11:316.
• 13. Apte RS, Chen DS, Ferrara N. VEGF in signaling and disease: beyond discovery and development. Cell 2019;176:1248-64.
• 14. Dodampahala SH, Jayakody SN, Gunathilake WCC, Rahubaddha AN, Dodampahala SK. Transvaginal color doppler in the assessment of cervical carcinoma and pre-cancer: evidence from a case control study using colour doppler ultrasonography pulsatility index of uterine vasculature. Adv Reprod Sci 2016;4:93-9.
• 15. Alcázar JL, Arribas S, Mínguez JA, Jurado M. The role of ultrasound in the assessment of uterine cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2014;64:311-6.
• 16. Hsieh CY, Wu CC, Chen TM, Chen CA, Chen CL, Wang JF, et al. Clinical significance of intratumoral blood flow in cervical carcinoma assessed by color Doppler ultrasound. Cancer 1995;75:2518-22.
• 17. Wu YC, Yuan CC, Hung JH, Chao KC, Yen MS, Ng HT. Power Doppler angiographic appearance and blood flow velocity waveforms in invasive cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2000;79:181-6.
• 18. Liang H, Fu M, Liu FM, Song L, Li P, Zhou J. Transvaginal three-dimensional color power Doppler ultrasound and cervical MVD measurement in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2014;18:1979-84.
• 19. Ping L, Xue-mei W, Yuqin Z, Yanjun L, Chun-mei T.. Correlation between three-dimensional color power angiography, MVD and VEGF expression in cervical carcinoma. J China Med Univ 2009;38:848.
• 20. Doğan O, Pulatoğlu Ç, Başbuğ A, Ellibeş Kaya A, Yassa M. Discriminating performance of early uterine and cervical artery pulsatility and resistivity in pre-invasive cervical lesions. Sisli Etfal Hastan Tip Bul 2018;52:206-11.