SEVERE CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIAS (CIN II-III/CARCINOMA IN SITU) AND MICROCARCINOMA OF THE CERVIX UTERI IN PREGNANT WOMEN


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Objective. To compare the clinical, morphological, and virologic characteristics of severe epithelial lesions and microcarcinomas of the cervix uteri in pregnant and nonpregnant women, to study disease and pregnancy outcomes, and to assess prognosis. Subjects and methods. Thirty-six pregnant women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN), including 7 patients with CIN II, 23 with CIN III/carcinoma in situ (CIS), and 6 with microinvasive carcinoma of the cervix uteri, and 248 nonpregnant women with the same diagnoses. The clinical course of the disease was comparatively analyzed on the basis of cytological, virologic, colposcopic, and histologic findings and the results of treatment and follow-up. Results. All the patients were found to have varying epithelial lesions concurrent with colposcopic changes; viral load was significantly higher in pregnant women. Progressive gravid ectopy favored the hyperdiagnosis of a presumptive grade of CIN. The results of postpartum histological examination agreed with those of pregnancy biopsy in 44.4%; the degree of lesions was less in 22.2% and higher in 33.4%. Thirty-three of the 36 women successfully carried pregnancy. The mean follow-up was 26 months. All the patients are alive and have no recurrence of CIN and cancer of the cervix uteri. The infants are developing normally. Conclusion. Full-term pregnancy does not worsen disease prognosis in CIN II-III, including CIS. Targeted biopsies under colposcopic guidance are safe and advisable to define the degree of a lesion, they are indicated for suspected cases of severe CIN and invasion and are, however, also acceptable in other cases. If microinvasion is found, treatment may be delayed until after cesarean section.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

L. I KOROLENKOVA

N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

Email: l.korolenkova@mail.ru

V. V BRYUZGIN

N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences

References

  1. Урманчеева А.Ф. Гинекологический рак в сочетании с беременностью // Практ. онкол. — 2009. — T.10, № 4. — C. 184—197.
  2. Amant F., Van Calsteren K., Halaska M.J. et al. Gynecologic cancers in pregnancy: Guidelines of an international consensus meeting // Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. — 2009. — Vol.19. — P. 1—12.
  3. Apgar B.S., Kittendorf A.L., Bettcher C.M. et al. Update on ASCCP consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical screening tests and cervical histology // Am. Fam. Physician. — 2009. — Vol. 80, № 2. — P. 147—155.
  4. Fader A.N., Alward E.K., Niederhauser A. et al. Cervical dysplasia in pregnancy: a multi-institutional evaluation // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2010. — Vol. 203, № 2. — P. 113; e1—6.
  5. Kaplan K.J., Dainty L.A., Dolinsky B. et al. Prognosis and recurrence risk for patients with cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions diagnosed during pregnancy // Cancer. — 2004. — Vol. 102. — P. 228—232.
  6. Kyrgiou M., Koliopoulos G., Martin-Hirsch P. et al. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis// Lancet. — 2006. — Vol. 367. — P. 489—498.
  7. Moscicki A.B., Shiboski S., Hills N.K. et al. Regression of low-grade squamous intra epithelial lesions in young women// Lancet. — 2004. — Vol. 364. — P. 1678—1683.
  8. Patrelli T.S., Anfuso S., Vandi F. et al. Preterm delivery and premature rupture of membranes after conization in 80 women. Preliminary data // Minerva Ginecol. — 2008. — Vol. 60, № 4. — P. 295—298.
  9. Robinson W., Webb S., Tirpack J. et al. Management of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia during pregnancy with loop excision // Gynecol. Oncol. — 1997. — Vol. 64. — P. 153—155.
  10. Selleret L., Mathevet P. Precancerous cervical lesions during pregnancy: diagnostic and treatment // J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod. (Paris). — 2008. — Vol.37, (suppl. 1). — P. 131—138.
  11. Serati M., Uccella S., Laterza R.M. et al. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia during pregnancy// Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. — 2008. — Vol. 87, № 12. — P. 1296—1300.
  12. Siddiqui G., Kurzel R.B., Lampley E.C. et al. Cervical dysplasia in pregnancy: progression versus egression post-partum// Int. J. Fertil. Womens Med. — 2001. — Vol. 46. — P. 278—280.
  13. Strinic T., Bukovic D., Karelovic D. et al. The effect of delivery on regression of abnormal cervical cytologic findings // Coll. Anthropol. — 2002. — Vol. 26. — P. 577—582.
  14. Textbook of gynaecological oncology /Eds. A. Ayhan et al. — Güne§ Publishing, 2009. — P. 15—20.
  15. Ueda Y., Enomoto T., Miyatake T. et al. Postpartum Outcome of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in pregnant women determined by route of delivery // Reprod. Sci. — 2009. — Vol. 16, № 11. — P. 1034—1039.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies