4.3 Article

Surveillance for Recurrent Cancers and Vaginal Epithelial Lesions in Patients With Invasive Cervical Cancer After Hysterectomy Are Vaginal Cytology and High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing Useful?

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 140, 期 5, 页码 708-714

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPH4AFSZHU8EKK

关键词

Vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia; Vaginal carcinoma; Hysterectomy; Cervical cancer; Cytologic follow-up; Histologic follow-up

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To examine whether women who have had a hysterectomy for cervical cancer may be at an increased risk of vaginal epithelial lesions. Methods: We studied 147 patients with invasive cervical carcinoma (76 squamous cell carcinomas [SCCs], 60 adenocarcinomas [ADCs], and 11 adenosquamous cell carcinomas) who were treated by hysterectomy and had vaginal pathologic follow-up for a mean period of 43.3 months. Results: Of the patients, 15.0% (22/147) developed vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN) or recurrence after hysterectomy, including two recurrent carcinomas and eight high-grade VAINs. More important, these high-grade VAINs or recurrent carcinomas were detected only in patients with cervical SCC within the first two years after hysterectomy but not in patients with cervical ADC. Eleven (23.4%) of 47 patients had at least one positive high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing result during the follow-up period, and VAIN was detected in 54.5% (6/11) of patients with an hrHPV-positive result compared with 16.7% (6/36) with an hrHPV-negative result. Conclusions: Our results indicate that women with cervical cancer are at an increased risk of VAIN besides recurrence, and women with cervical SCC are more prone to high-grade VAIN/recurrence, especially within the first two years after hysterectomy. The significantly increased detection rate of VAINS/recurrence in the hrHPV-positive group suggests vaginal cytology and HPV cotesting might be the preferred method for surveillance in these women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据