Discrepancy of cervical cytology and colposcopic biopsy: is cervical conization necessary?

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether diagnostic cervical conization is necessary in the patient with a discrepancy between the Papanicolaou smear and the colposcopically directed biopsy(s). Patients eligible for the study had at least a two-degree discrepancy, eg, CIN III cytology and CIN I or less on colposcopic biopsies, or CIN II cytology with biopsies showing no dysplasia. Of the 786 records reviewed, 87 (11.1%) had such a discrepancy. Twelve of 87 patients (13.8%) were pregnant and ten of 87 (11.5%) failed to return after their initial colposcopic evaluation, leaving 65 patients in the study group. Of these, 20 of 65 (30.8%) were treated medically, nine (13.8%) had cryotherapy, and 36 (55.4%) underwent diagnostic cervical conization. Of patients undergoing cervical conization, three had microinvasive carcinoma of the cervix. Following medical therapy, only two of 20 patients (10%) had negative cytology, two (10%) had CIN I, five (25%) received additional therapy, and 11 (55%) were lost to follow-up. Seven patients did not return for follow-up Papanicolaou smear after medical treatment, and four did not return after their initial posttreatment Papanicolaou smear revealed persistent dysplasia. Of the nine patients treated with cryotherapy, six (66.7%) had a negative Papanicolaou smear at the time of their initial follow-up. The results of this study emphasize the importance of proceeding with diagnostic or therapeutic conization if a two-stage or greater discrepancy exists between the colposcopically directed biopsies and the cervical cytology. The risk of not diagnosing a microinvasive or invasive cervical carcinoma far outweighs the risk of conization.