Hysterectomy for Abnormal Cervical Smear When Local Excision Is Not Possible

Objective To review the outcomes of those women who underwent hysterectomy because of an abnormal cervical smear where local excision was considered technically not possible. Materials and Methods A retrospective chart review was performed for all women who had hysterectomy at a university-affiliated hospital, carried out during the period between January 2000 and June 2012, because of cervical neoplasia. Results Fifty-six women were identified. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of the women at the time of hysterectomy was 61.4 (8.2) years. Two women (3.6%) had cervical carcinoma, and adjuvant treatment was required in both cases. Being postmenopausal and older than 50 years and having a history of previous local excisional procedure were associated with a higher risk of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia found during hysterectomy (p > .005). During a mean (SD) follow-up of 42.3 (30.8) months after hysterectomy, 35.7% of women had persistent cytologic abnormality after hysterectomy, with 19.6% having subsequent histologically proven vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN). Women’s age, route of hysterectomy, previous local excision, degree of cytologic abnormality before hysterectomy, presence of VAIN before hysterectomy, and final histology of the hysterectomy specimen could not predict subsequent VAIN after hysterectomy. Conclusions Hysterectomy seems to be an appropriate option in management, but further surgery or adjuvant therapy may be needed. Women should also be aware of the possibilities of persistent cytologic abnormalities including VAIN, but unfortunately, no predictive factor for its occurrence can be identified.

[1]  E. Sala,et al.  Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology , 2011, European Radiology.

[2]  D. Kim,et al.  Management of occult invasive cervical cancer found after simple hysterectomy. , 2010, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[3]  N. Hacker Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva , 2009, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[4]  T. Verguts,et al.  Incidence of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia after hysterectomy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a retrospective study. , 2008, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  I. Babarinsa,et al.  Outcome of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia following hysterectomy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 2006, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

[6]  N. Das,et al.  Recurrent smear abnormalities where repeat loop treatment is not possible: is hysterectomy the answer? , 2005, Gynecologic oncology.

[7]  T. Shiozawa,et al.  Correlation between MRI and histopathologic findings in stage I cervical carcinomas: influence of stromal desmoplastic reaction , 2004, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[8]  J. T. Cox,et al.  Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  P. Karakitsos,et al.  Vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN) following hysterectomy in patients treated for carcinoma in situ of the cervix. , 1997, European journal of gynaecological oncology.

[10]  Gynecologists ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 99: management of abnormal cervical cytology and histology. , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  A. Östör,et al.  Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. , 1993, International Journal of Gynecological Pathology.