Analysis of Conization Results in Patients undergoing Hysterectomy for Uterine Adenocarcinoma

Abstract

Objective To observe if the histopathological result of a conization performed after cervical adenocarcinoma in situ diagnosis is compatible with the histopathological analysis of a subsequent hysterectomy.

Methods The present descriptive and observational research consisted of the analysis of the medical records of 42 patients who were diagnosed with in situ adenocarcinoma postconization. The analysis consisted of whether there was compatibility between the histopathological reports of conization and hysterectomy and if there was an association between adenocarcinoma in situ and another neoplasia (squamous disease). Interpretation of any immunohistochemistry reports obtained was also performed. In addition, clinical and epidemiological data were also analyzed.

Results A total of 42 conizations were performed, 33 (79%) were cold knife conizations and 9 (21%) were loop electrosurgical excision procedures (LEEPs). Of the patients analyzed, 5 (10%) chose not to undergo subsequent hysterectomy to preserve fertility or were < 25 years old. Out of the 37 patients with adenocarcinoma in situ who underwent subsequent hysterectomy, 6 (16%) presented with residual disease. This finding proved incompatible with the finding of the conizations, which had ruled out invasive cancer.

Conclusion The prevalence of adenocarcinoma in situ increased in the past years. There is still a large part of the medical literature that advocates the use of conservative treatment for this disease, even though it is common knowledge that it is a multifocal disease. However, the majority of studies advocate that hysterectomy should remain the preferred treatment for women who have already completed their reproductive purpose.

Resumo

Objetivo Observar se o resultado proveniente de uma conização realizada após o diagnóstico de adenocarcinoma cervical in situ é compatível com a análise histopatológica da histerectomia.

Métodos A pesquisa foi descritiva e observacional e consistiu na análise de prontuário de 42 pacientes que tiveram o diagnóstico de adenocarcinoma in situ obtidas por conização. Foram analisados se havia compatibilidade entre os laudos de conização e histerectomia, margens do cone, se havia associação com outra patologia (doença escamosa) e interpretação de eventuais laudos histoquímicos obtidos. Além disso, também foram analisados dados clínico-epidemiológicos.

Resultados Foram realizadas 42 conizações, sendo 33 (79%) por cone clássico e 9 (21%) por cirurgia de alta frequência. Das pacientes analisadas, 5 (10%) não foram submetidas a histerectomia por desejarem manter a fertilidade ou por terem idade < 25 anos. Das 37 pacientes com adenocarcinoma in situ no exame prévio realizado e que foram submetidas à histerectomia posteriormente, 6 (16%) apresentaram doença residual após o procedimento cirúrgico, apresentando laudos do anatomopatológico pós-histerectomia incompatíveis com o achado na conização que atestava margens livres.

Conclusão A prevalência do adenocarcinoma in situ vem aumentando cada vez mais. Ainda há uma grande parte da literatura que defende o uso do tratamento conservador para esta doença, mesmo sabendo que ela é uma doença multifocal e que pode estar presente mesmo em situações nas quais o anatomopatológico evidencie margens livres. Tendo em vista essas características, a maioria preconiza que a histerectomia continua a ser o tratamento preferencial nas mulheres que já completaram o seu intuito reprodutivo.

Keywords

conization - hysterectomy - adenocarcinoma in situ

Palavras-chave

conização - histerectomia - adenocarcinoma in situ

Contributors

All authors participated in the concept and design of the study; analysis and interpretation of data; draft or revision of the manuscript; and they have approved the manuscript as submitted. All authors are responsible for the reported research.

• References

• 1 Thuler LCS, de Aguiar SS, Bergmann A. [Determinants of late stage diagnosis of cervical cancer in Brazil]. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2014; 36 (06) 237-243 . Doi: 10.1590/S0100-720320140005010
• 2 Pedersen K, Fogelberg S, Thamsborg LH, Clements M, Nygård M, Kristiansen IS. , et al. An overview of cervical cancer epidemiology and prevention in Scandinavia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97 (07) 795-807 . Doi: 10.1111/aogs.13313
• 3 Conrad RD, Liu AH, Wentzensen N, Zhang RR, Dunn ST, Wang SS. , et al. Cytologic patterns of cervical adenocarcinomas with emphasis on factors associated with underdiagnosis. Cancer Cytopathol 2018; 126 (11) 950-958 . Doi: 10.1002/cncy.22055
• 4 Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva. Coordenação de Prevenção e Vigilância [Internet]. Estimativa 2014: incidência de câncer no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2014 [cited 2015 Jan 28]. Available from: http://www.saude.sp.gov.br/resources/ses/perfil/gestor/homepage/outros-destaques/estimativa-de-incidencia-de-cancer-2014/estimativa_cancer_24042014.pdf
• 5 Ferrini Filho AR, Ferrini CDMC, Nogueira JR, Kairala ALR, Oliveira MS, Ferrini AMC. , et al. Estudo sobre a incidência de casos de adenocarcinoma de colo uterino no Distrito Federal [Internet]. In: 17th Safety, Health and Environment World Congress; 2017 Jul 9–12; Vila Real, Portugal. 2017 [cited 2018 May 12]. p. 86–8. Available from: http://copec.eu/shewc2017/proc/works/19.pdf
• 6 Castanon A, Landy R, Sasieni PD. Is cervical screening preventing adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix?. Int J Cancer 2016; 139 (05) 1040-1045 . Doi: 10.1002/ijc.30152
• 7 Cambruzzi E, Zettler CG, Pereira CAO. Adenocarcinoma endocervical em Porto Alegre e região metropolitana: morfologia e prevalência. Rev AMRIGS. 2005; 49 (01) 27-33
• 8 Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61 (02) 69-90 . Doi: 10.3322/caac.20107
• 9 Zamora Guerra YU, Córdova Ramírez S. Cytological diagnosis of cervical adenocarcinoma and cytohistological agreement at General Hospital of Mexico “Dr Eduardo Liceaga”. Rev Med Hosp Gen (Mex) 2018; 81 (01) 1-6 . Doi: 10.1016/j.hgmx.2017.03.007
• 10 Bansal B, Gupta P, Gupta N, Rajwanshi A, Suri V. Detecting uterine glandular lesions: Role of cervical cytology. Cytojournal 2016; 13: 3 . Doi: 10.4103/1742-6413.177156
• 11 Portuguesa de Ginecologia S. . Secção Portuguesa de Colposcopia e Patologia Cervico-Vulvovaginal. Consenso sobre infeção por HPV e neoplasia intraepitelial do colo vulva e vagina [Internet]. Coimbra: SPG; 2014. [cited 2018 May 12]. Available from: http://www.spginecologia.pt/uploads/Livro-de-Consenso-prova-3-FINAL.pdf
• 12 Wright VC. Colposcopy of adenocarcinoma in situ and adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. In: Mayeaux Jr EJ, Cox JT. , editors. Modern colposcopy: textbook and atlas. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Wolters Klumer Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012: 325-7
• 13 Campaner AB, Santos RE, Matos L, Carvalho CRN, Nadais RF, Aoki T. Adenocarcinoma in situ do colo uterino: aspectos atuais. Femina 2007; 35 (09) 557-564
• 14 Marth C, Landoni F, Mahner S, McCormack M, Gonzalez-Martin A, Colombo N. ESMO Guidelines Committee Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2017; 28 (Suppl. 04) iv72-iv83 . Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx220
• 15 Keeley J. Clinical outcomes of women with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix treated by conization: an integrated literature review. In: 53rd Grace Peterson Nursing Research Colloquium. Chicago; 2018
• 16 Jiang Y, Chen C, Li L. Comparison of cold-knife conization versus loop electrosurgical excision for cervical adenocarcinoma in situ (ACIS): a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12 (01) e0170587 . Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170587
• 17 Yahata H, Sonoda K, Yasunaga M, Ohgami T, Kawano Y, Kaneki E. , et al. Surgical treatment and outcome of early invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix (FIGO stage IA1). Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2018; 14 (02) e50-e53 . Doi: 10.1111/ajco.12691
• 18 Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Nacional de Câncer. Coordenação Geral de Ações Estratégicas. Divisão de Apoio à Rede de Atenção Oncológica [Internet]. Diretrizes brasileiras para o rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2011 [cited 2018 Jan 28]. Available from: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/inca/rastreamento_cancer_colo_utero.pdf
• 19 Latif NA, Neubauer NL, Helenowski IB, Lurain JR. Management of adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: a comparison of loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold knife conization. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2015; 19 (02) 97-102 . Doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000055
• 20 Nayar R, Wilbur DC. The Pap Test and Bethesda 2014: “The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. (after a quotation from Mark Twain)”. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2015; 19 (03) 175-184 . Doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000115
• 21 Bull-Phelps SL, Garner EI, Walsh CS, Gehrig PA, Miller DS, Schorge JO. Fertility-sparing surgery in 101 women with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 107 (02) 316-319 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.06.021
• 22 Girardi F, Heydarfadai M, Koroschetz F, Pickel H, Winter R. Cold-knife conization versus loop excision: histopathologic and clinical results of a randomized trial. Gynecol Oncol 1994; 55 (3 Pt 1): 368-370 . Doi: 10.1006/gyno.1994.1308
• 23 Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, Avall-Lundqvist E, Fischerova D, Haie-Meder C. , et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Cervical Cancer. Virchows Arch 2018; 472 (06) 919-936 . Doi: 10.1007/s00428-018-2362-9
• 24 Tierney KE, Lin PS, Amezcua C, Matsuo K, Ye W, Felix JC, Roman LD. , et al. Cervical conization of adenocarcinoma in situ: a predicting model of residual disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (04) 366.e1-366.e5 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.12.030
• 25 Colombo N, Carinelli S, Colombo A, Marini C, Rollo D, Sessa C. ; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Cervical cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2012; 23 (Suppl. 07) vii27-vii32 . Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds268
• 26 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical carcinomas. Number 35, May 2002. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002; 78 (01) 79-91
• 27 Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Cho KR. , et al. Cervical Cancer, version 3.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019; 17 (01) 64-84 . Doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0001
• 28 Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, Katki A, Kinney WK, Schiffman M. , et al; 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013; 17 (05) (Suppl. 01) S1-S27 . Doi: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e318287d329
• 29 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 99: management of abnormal cervical cytology and histology. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (06) 1419-1444 . Doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318192497c
• 30 Partridge EE, Abu-Rustum NR, Campos SM. , et al; National Comprehensive Cancer Networks. Cervical cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8 (12) 1358-1386 . Doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0103
• 31 Costa S, Venturoli S, Origoni M, Preti M, Mariani L, Cristoforoni P, Sandri MT. Performance of HPV DNA testing in the follow-up after treatment of high-grade cervical lesions, adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and microinvasive carcinoma. Ecancermedicalscience 2015; 9: 528 . Doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2015.528
• 32 Salani R, Puri I, Bristow RE. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: a metaanalysis of 1278 patients evaluating the predictive value of conization margin status. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (02) 182.e1-182.e5 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.09.012
• 33 Gien LT, Beauchemin MC, Thomas G. Adenocarcinoma: a unique cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 116 (01) 140-146 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.09.040
• 34 Thuler LCS, Bergmann A, Casado L. Perfil das pacientes com câncer do colo do útero no Brasil, 2000–2009: estudo de base secundária. Rev Bras Cancerol 2012; 58 (03) 351-357
• 35 Tornesello ML, Losito S, Benincasa G. , et al. Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes and HPV16 variants and risk of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 121 (01) 32-42 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.12.005
• 36 dos Anjos SdeJ, Vasconcelos CTM, Franco ES, de Almeida PC, Pinheiro AKB. [Risk factors for uterine cervical cancer according to results of VIA, cytology and cervicography]. Rev Esc Enferm USP 2010; 44 (04) 912-920 . Doi: 10.1590/S0080-62342010000400008
• 37 Smith JS, Green J, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Appleby P, Peto J, Plummer M. , et al. Cervical cancer and use of hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review. Lancet 2003; 361 (9364): 1159-1167 . Doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12949-2
• 38 Ribeiro AA. Prevalência de infecção pelo Papilomavírus humano (HPV), anormalidades citológicas e fatores associados em adolescentes e adultas jovens [thesis]. Goiânia: Universidade Federal de Goiás; 2017
• 39 Appleby P, Beral V, Berrington de González A, Colin D, Franceschi S, Goodill A. , et al; International Collaboration of Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer. Carcinoma of the cervix and tobacco smoking: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 13,541 women with carcinoma of the cervix and 23,017 women without carcinoma of the cervix from 23 epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer 2006; 118 (06) 1481-1495 . Doi: 10.1002/ijc.21493