Cervical Adenocarcinoma in Situ: Update and Management

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Stephan Polterauer (1)
  Alexander Reinthaller (1) (2)
  Reinhard Horvat (3)
  Elmar Joura (1)
  Christoph Grimm (1)
  
• 关键词：ACIS ; AIS ; Atypical glandular cells ; Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ ; Endocervical canal ; Management of HPV ; Human papillomavirus ; HPV
• 刊名：Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports
• 出版年：2013
• 出版时间：June 2013
• 年：2013
• 卷：2
• 期：2
• 页码：86-93
• 全文大小：312KB
• 参考文献：1. 鈥?Ault KA, Joura EA, Kjaer SK, Iversen OE, Wheeler CM, Perez G, et al. Adenocarcinoma in situ and associated human papillomavirus type distribution observed in two clinical trials of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine. Int J Cancer. 2011;128:1344鈥?3. / The primary objective of this report is to describe the detection of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and associated human papillomavirus (HPV) type distribution that was observed in the context of two phase 3 clinical trials of a quadrivalent HPV6/11/16/18 vaccine. The study showed that HPV16/18 infection was present in 96% of AIS lesions and the authors suggested that prophylactic HPV vaccination should reduce the incidence of invasive adenocarcinoma. CrossRef
  2. Wang SS, Sherman ME, Hildesheim A, Lacey Jr JV, Devesa S. Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976鈥?000. Cancer. 2004;100:1035鈥?4. CrossRef
  3. Zaino RJ. Symposium part I: adenocarcinoma in situ, glandular dysplasia, and early invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2002;21:314鈥?6. CrossRef
  4. Madeleine MM, Daling JR, Schwartz SM, Shera K, McKnight B, Carter JJ, et al. Human papillomavirus and long-term oral contraceptive use increase the risk of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10:171.
  5. Herzog TJ, Monk BJ. Reducing the burden of glandular carcinomas of the uterine cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:566鈥?1. CrossRef
  6. Schoolland M, Segal A, Allpress S, Miranda A, Frost FA, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Cancer. 2002;96:330鈥?. CrossRef
  7. Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR, Key CR. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States: a 24-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:97鈥?05. CrossRef
  8. Vizcaino AP, Moreno V, Bosch FX, Munoz N, Barros-Dios XM, Parkin DM. International trends in the incidence of cervical cancer: I. Adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous cell carcinomas. Int J Cancer. 1998;75:536鈥?5. CrossRef
  9. Brotherton JM, Fridman M, May CL, Chappell G, Saville AM, Gertig DM. Early effect of the HPV vaccination programme on cervical abnormalities in Victoria, Australia: an ecological study. Lancet. 2011;377:2085鈥?2. CrossRef
  10. Seoud M, Tjalma WA, Ronsse V. Cervical adenocarcinoma: moving towards better prevention. Vaccine. 2011;29:9148鈥?8. CrossRef
  11. FUTURE II Study Group. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1915鈥?7. CrossRef
  12. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, Killackey M, Kulasingam SL, Cain J, et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;137:516鈥?2. CrossRef
  13. Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:1224鈥?.
  14. Di Bonito L, Bergeron C. Cytological screening of endocervical adenocarcinoma. Ann Pathol. 2012;32:e8鈥?4. CrossRef
  15. Diaz-Montes TP, Farinola MA, Zahurak ML, Bristow RE, Rosenthal DL. Clinical utility of atypical glandular cells (AGC) classification: cytohistologic comparison and relationship to HPV results. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104:366鈥?1. CrossRef
  16. Ruba S, Schoolland M, Allpress S, Sterrett G. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: screening and diagnostic errors in Papanicolaou smears. Cancer. 2004;102:280鈥?. CrossRef
  17. Boon ME, Baak JP, Kurver PJ, Overdiep SH, Verdonk GW. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: an underdiagnosed lesion. Cancer. 1981;48:768鈥?3. CrossRef
  18. Singh M, Mockler D, Akalin A, Burke S, Shroyer A, Shroyer KR. Immunocytochemical colocalization of P16(INK4a) and Ki-67 predicts CIN2/3 and AIS/adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2012;120:26鈥?4. CrossRef
  19. Li C, Rock KL, Woda BA, Jiang Z, Fraire AE, Dresser K. IMP3 is a novel biomarker for adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: an immunohistochemical study in comparison with p16(INK4a) expression. Mod Pathol. 2007;20:242鈥?. CrossRef
  20. Anttila A, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Leinonen M, Hakama M, Laurila P, Tarkkanen J, et al. Rate of cervical cancer, severe intraepithelial neoplasia, and adenocarcinoma in situ in primary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage: randomised study within organised screening programme. BMJ. 2010;340:c1804. CrossRef
  21. 鈥?Wright Jr TC, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:340. / The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, United States National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published these consensus guidelines. Recommendations for diagnostic work up of patients with AGC and management of cervical AIS are provided. CrossRef
  22. Schnatz PF, Sharpless KE, O'Sullivan DM. Use of human papillomavirus testing in the management of atypical glandular cells. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2009;13:94鈥?01. CrossRef
  23. Friedell G, McKay D. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the endocervix. Cancer. 1953;6:887鈥?7. CrossRef
  24. 脰st枚r AG, Duncan A, Quinn M, Rome R. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: an experience with 100 cases. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;79:207鈥?0. CrossRef
  25. Widrich T, Kennedy AW, Myers TM, Hart WR, Wirth S. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: management and outcome. Gynecol Oncol. 1996;61:304鈥?. CrossRef
  26. Plaxe SC, Saltzstein SL. Estimation of the duration of the preclinical phase of cervical adenocarcinoma suggests that there is ample opportunity for screening. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;75:55鈥?1. CrossRef
  27. Lea JS, Shin CH, Sheets EE, Coleman RL, Gehrig PA, Duska LR, et al. Endocervical curettage at conization to predict residual cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;87:129鈥?2. CrossRef
  28. 鈥?Costa S, Venturoli S, Negri G, Sideri M, Preti M, Pesaresi M, et al. Factors predicting the outcome of conservatively treated adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: an analysis of 166 cases. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:490鈥?. / This study assessed the clinical long-term outcome of patients conservatively treated for cervical AIS and their predictive factors. Positive HPV test results were shown to be the strongest predictor for recurrence after conservative management of AIS. CrossRef
  29. Dalrymple C, Valmadre S, Cook A, Atkinson K, Carter J, Houghton CR, et al. Cold knife versus laser cone biopsy for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix鈥攁 comparison of management and outcome. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:116鈥?0. CrossRef
  30. Kennedy AW, Biscotti CV. Further study of the management of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;86:361鈥?. CrossRef
  31. Azodi M, Chambers SK, Rutherford TJ, Kohorn EI, Schwartz PE, Chambers JT. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: management and outcome. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;73:348鈥?3. CrossRef
  32. 鈥?van Hanegem N, Barroilhet LM, Nucci MR, Bernstein M, Feldman S. Fertility-sparing treatment in younger women with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:72鈥?. / This retrospective study investigated the effectiveness of loop versus cold knife conization in younger women (<30 years) with ACIS. The authors found no difference in achieving negative margins or recurrence of ACIS. CrossRef
  33. Kim ML, Hahn HS, Lim KT, Lee KH, Kim HS, Hong SR, et al. The safety of conization in the management of adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. J Gynecol Oncol. 2011;22:25鈥?1. CrossRef
  34. 鈥?El Masri WM, Walts AE, Chiang A, Walsh CS. Predictors of invasive adenocarcinoma after conization for cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125:589鈥?3. / This retrospective study aimed to identify patients who can be safely managed with an extrafascial hysterectomy based on predictors of invasion in the conization specimen. Patients with features such as positive cone margins, positive endocervical sampling, and presence of pathological suspicion of invasion the conization specimen were at highest risk for invasive adenocarcinoma. CrossRef
  35. 鈥⑩€?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;200:182.e1鈥?. / This metaanalysis investigated the value of margin status in predicting residual disease after cervical conization for cervical ACIS. The study showed that patients with positive margins are significantly more likely to have residual or recurrent disease whereas those with negative margins can be treated conservatively. CrossRef
  36. Lacour RA, Garner EI, Molpus KL, Ashfaq R, Schorge JO. Management of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1449鈥?1. CrossRef
  37. Slama J, Freitag P, Dundr P, Duskova J, Fischerova D, Zikan M, et al. Outcomes of pregnant patients with Pap smears classified as atypical glandular cells. Cytopathology. 2012;23:383鈥?. CrossRef
  38. Griffin D, Manuck TA, Hoffman MS. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix in pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97:662鈥?. CrossRef
  39. Martinelli F, Schmeler KM, Johnson C, Brown J, Euscher ED, Ramirez PT, et al. Utility of conization with frozen section for intraoperative triage prior to definitive hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127:307鈥?1. CrossRef
  40. Greer BE, Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Apte SM, Campos SM, Chan J, et al. Cervical cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8:1388鈥?16.
  41. Abu-Rustum NR, Sonoda Y. Fertility-sparing surgery in early-stage cervical cancer: indications and applications. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8:1435鈥?.
  42. Costa S, Negri G, Sideri M, Santini D, Martinelli G, Venturoli S, et al. Human papillomavirus (HPV) test and PAP smear as predictors of outcome in conservatively treated adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:170鈥?. CrossRef
  43. Goldstein NS, Mani A. The status and distance of cone biopsy margins as a predictor of excision adequacy for endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998;109:727鈥?2.
  44. Denehy TR, Gregori CA, Breen JL. Endocervical curettage, cone margins, and residual adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:1鈥?. CrossRef
  45. Hurrell DP, Jamison J, Dobbs SP, McCluggage WG. Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ recurring as vaginal adenocarcinoma 16 years after hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2009;28:296鈥?00. CrossRef
  46. Mahdi H, Thrall M, Agoff N, Doherty M. Pagetoid adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix with pagetoid spread into the vagina. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:461鈥?. CrossRef
  47. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 99: management of abnormal cervical cytology and histology. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1419鈥?4. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Stephan Polterauer (1)
  Alexander Reinthaller (1) (2)
  Reinhard Horvat (3)
  Elmar Joura (1)
  Christoph Grimm (1)
  
  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna, Gynecologic Cancer Unit, Medical University Vienna, Austria, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria
  2. Karl Landsteiner Institute for General Gynecology and Experimental Gynecologic Oncology, Vienna, Austria
  3. Department of Pathology, Division Gynecologic Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  

文摘

Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the uterine cervix is caused by infection with high-risk human papillomavirus and is the recognized precursor of invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Because most AIS lesions are caused by HPV 16/18 infection, prophylactic HPV vaccination is an important step toward prevention of AIS, potentially reducing the incidence of invasive adenocarcinoma. Nonetheless, at the moment the incidence of AIS and invasive adenocarcinoma continues to increase, especially among young women when fertility preservation is an issue. Both diagnosis and treatment of AIS is challenging, because AIS lesions frequently extend into the endocervical canal, making detection and complete excision difficult. Hysterectomy remains the standard treatment for AIS. Selected patients, who wish to preserve fertility, with clear margins and negative ECC after initial conization are potential candidates for conservative treatment. If margins are involved after initial conization or ECC results are positive, the risk of residual or recurrent AIS and invasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix is considerably high. In these women, repeat surgery should be performed. For women, who do not undergo hysterectomy, long-term follow-up is recommended.