Risk of invasive cervical cancer after atypical glandular cells in cervical screening: nationwide cohort study

Jiangrong Wang, Bengt Andrae, Karin Sundström, Peter Ström, Alexander Ploner, K Miriam Elfström, Lisen Arnheim-Dahlström, Joakim Dillner, Pär Sparén, Jiangrong Wang, Bengt Andrae, Karin Sundström, Peter Ström, Alexander Ploner, K Miriam Elfström, Lisen Arnheim-Dahlström, Joakim Dillner, Pär Sparén

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the risks of invasive cervical cancer after detection of atypical glandular cells (AGC) during cervical screening.

Design: Nationwide population based cohort study.

Setting: Cancer and population registries in Sweden.

Participants: 3,054,328 women living in Sweden at any time between 1 January 1980 and 1 July 2011 who had any record of cervical cytological testing at ages 23-59. Of these, 2,899,968 women had normal cytology results at the first screening record. The first recorded abnormal result was atypical glandular cells (AGC) in 14 625, high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) in 65 633, and low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) in 244 168.

Main outcome measures: Cumulative incidence of invasive cervical cancer over 15.5 years; proportion of invasive cervical cancer within six months of abnormality (prevalence); crude incidence rates for invasive cervical cancer over 0.5-15.5 years of follow-up; incidence rate ratios compared with women with normal cytology, estimated with Poisson regression adjusted for age and stratified by histopathology of cancer; distribution of clinical assessment within six months after the abnormality.

Results: The prevalence of cervical cancer was 1.4% for women with AGC, which was lower than for women with HSIL (2.5%) but higher than for women with LSIL (0.2%); adenocarcinoma accounted for 73.2% of the prevalent cases associated with AGC. The incidence rate of invasive cervical cancer after AGC was significantly higher than for women with normal results on cytology for up to 15.5 years and higher than HSIL and LSIL for up to 6.5 years. The incidence rate of adenocarcinoma was 61 times higher than for women with normal results on cytology in the first screening round after AGC, and remained nine times higher for up to 15.5 years. Incidence and prevalence of invasive cervical cancer was highest when AGC was found at ages 30-39. Only 54% of women with AGC underwent histology assessment within six months, much less than after HSIL (86%). Among women with histology assessment within six months, the incidence rate of cervical cancer after AGC was significantly higher than that after HSIL for up to 6.5 years.

Conclusions: AGC found at cervical screening is associated with a high and persistent risk of cervical cancer for up to 15 years, particularly for cervical adenocarcinoma and women with AGC at age 30-39. Compared with the reduction in risk of cancer seen after HSIL management, management of AGC seems to have been suboptimal in preventing cervical cancer. Research to optimise management is needed, and a more aggressive assessment strategy is warranted.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4772788/bin/wanj028618.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 Details on study inclusions and exclusions. As 207 754 women had both normal and abnormal cytology, sum of normal, abnormal, and having other abnormalities exceeded 3 024 340 women. Other abnormalities included “atypical cells of uncertain origin,” “adenocarcinoma in situ,” “adenocarcinoma,” and dysplasia with concurrent AGC and HSIL/LSIL
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4772788/bin/wanj028618.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Cumulative incidence of cervical cancer after AGC, HSIL, and LSIL, by histopathology of cancer
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4772788/bin/wanj028618.f3_default.jpg
Fig 3 Crude incidence rates of incident cervical cancers at follow-up of AGC, HSIL, and LSIL, by histopathology of cancer. To avoid sparse and fluctuating data, right end point of follow-up time, denotes incidence at 10.5-15.5 years
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4772788/bin/wanj028618.f4_default.jpg
Fig 4 Crude incidence rates of incident cervical cancers at follow-up of AGC, HSIL, and LSIL, by age at abnormality and histopathology of cancer. To avoid sparse and fluctuating data, right end point of follow-up time denotes incidence in 10.5-15.5 years
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4772788/bin/i276.f1_default.jpg

References

    1. IARC. Cervix cancer screening. In: IARC handbooks of cancer prevention.IARC Press, 2004.
    1. Macgregor JE, Campbell MK, Mann EMF, Swanson KY. Screening for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in north east Scotland shows fall in incidence and mortality from invasive cancer with concomitant rise in preinvasive disease. BMJ 1994;308:1407-11. 10.1136/bmj.308.6941.1407. .
    1. Östör AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12:186-92. 10.1097/00004347-199304000-00018. .
    1. Gustafsson L, Adami HO. Natural history of cervical neoplasia: consistent results obtained by an identification technique. Br J Cancer 1989;60:132-41. 10.1038/bjc.1989.236. .
    1. McCredie MR, Sharples KJ, Paul C, et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:425-34. 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70103-7. .
    1. Soloman D. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute workshop in Bethesda, MD, December 12-13, 1988. Diagn Cytopathol 1989;5:331-4. 10.1002/dc.2840050318. .
    1. Broder S. Rapid communication—the Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses—report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop. JAMA 1992;267:1892. 10.1001/jama.1992.03480140014005. .
    1. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. Forum Group Members Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-9. 10.1001/jama.287.16.2114. .
    1. Schnatz PF, Guile M, OʼSullivan DM, Sorosky JI. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:701-8. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000202401.29145.68. .
    1. 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;78:97-105. 10.1006/gyno.2000.5826. .
    1. Bray F, Carstensen B, Møller H, et al. Incidence trends of adenocarcinoma of the cervix in 13 European countries. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:2191-9. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0231. .
    1. Nationellt Kvalitetsregister för Cervixcancerprevention. Förebyggande av livmoderhalscancer i Sverige. 2013.
    1. NKCx. Swedish National Cervical Screening Registry_Analysis.
    1. Swedish National Cervical Screening Registry. Förebyggande av livmoderhalscancer i Sverige. Verksamhetsberättelse och Årsrapport 2014 med data till och med 2013.
    1. Statistics Sweden.
    1. World Health Organization. Statistical Code for Human tumours (WHO/HS/CANC./24.1).World Health Organization, 1956.
    1. Andrae B, Kemetli L, Sparén P, et al. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:622-9. 10.1093/jnci/djn099. .
    1. Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J. Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer 2003;89:88-93. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600974. .
    1. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014.
    1. Jordan J, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for clinical management of abnormal cervical cytology, part 1. Cytopathology 2008;19:342-54. 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2008.00623.x. .
    1. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, et al. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Second edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 2010;21:448-58. 10.1093/annonc/mdp471. .
    1. von Karsa L, Arbyn M, De Vuyst H, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Summary of the supplements on HPV screening and vaccination. Papillomavirus Res 2015;1:22-31. 10.1016/j.pvr.2015.06.006.
    1. Working and reference group for cervical cancer prevention. Cervical Cancer Prevention: Guidelines for management, treatment and follow-up of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia, Report No 63 (in Swedish). Swedish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology; 2010.
    1. Widrich T, Kennedy AW, Myers TM, Hart WR, Wirth S. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: management and outcome. Gynecol Oncol 1996;61:304-8. 10.1006/gyno.1996.0147. .
    1. Kennedy AW, Biscotti CV. Further study of the management of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Gynecol Oncol 2002;86:361-4. 10.1006/gyno.2002.6771. .
    1. Costales AB, Milbourne AM, Rhodes HE, et al. Risk of residual disease and invasive carcinoma in women treated for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 2013;129:513-6. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.03.015. .
    1. Cheng WF, Chen YL, You SL, et al. Risk of gynaecological malignancies in cytologically atypical glandular cells: follow-up study of a nationwide screening population. BJOG 2011;118:34-41. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02769.x. .
    1. Kennedy AW, Salmieri SS, Wirth SL, Biscotti CV, Tuason LJ, Travarca MJ. Results of the clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGCUS) detected on cervical cytology screening. Gynecol Oncol 1996;63:14-8. 10.1006/gyno.1996.0270. .
    1. Zweizig S, Noller K, Reale F, Collis S, Resseguie L. Neoplasia associated with atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 1997;65:314-8. 10.1006/gyno.1997.4640. .
    1. Zhao C, Florea A, Onisko A, Austin RM. Histologic follow-up results in 662 patients with Pap test findings of atypical glandular cells: results from a large academic womens hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:383-9. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.019. .
    1. Goff BA, Atanasoff P, Brown E, Muntz HG, Bell DA, Rice LW. Endocervical glandular atypia in Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:101-4..
    1. Chhieng DC, Elgert PA, Cangiarella JF, Cohen J-M. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. A follow-up study from an academic medical center. Acta Cytol 2000;44:557-66. 10.1159/000328530. .
    1. Kim TJ, Kim HS, Park CT, et al. Clinical evaluation of follow-up methods and results of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS) detected on cervicovaginal Pap smears. Gynecol Oncol 1999;73:292-8. 10.1006/gyno.1999.5360. .
    1. Nasuti JF, Fleisher SR, Gupta PK. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): clinical considerations and cytohistologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:186-90. 10.1002/dc.10070. .
    1. Ulker V, Numanoglu C, Akyol A, et al. Analyses of atypical glandular cells re-defined by the 2006 Bethesda System: histologic outcomes and clinical implication of follow-up management. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2013;34:457-61..
    1. Katki HA, Schiffman M, Castle PE, et al. Five-year risks of CIN 3+ and cervical cancer among women with HPV-positive and HPV-negative high-grade Pap results. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17(Suppl 1):S50-5. 10.1097/LGT.0b013e3182854282. .
    1. Geier CS, Wilson M, Creasman W. Clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:64-9. 10.1067/mob.2001.108995. .
    1. Sharpless KE, Schnatz PF, Mandavilli S, Greene JF, Sorosky JI. Dysplasia associated with atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:494-500. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000152350.10875.02. .
    1. Adhya AK, Mahesha V, Srinivasan R, et al. Atypical glandular cells in cervical smears: histological correlation and a suggested plan of management based on age of the patient in a low-resource setting. Cytopathology 2009;20:375-9. 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2008.00629.x. .
    1. Asciutto KC, Henic E, Forslund O, Bjelkenkrantz K, Borgfeldt C. Age influences the clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cytology. Anticancer Res 2015;35:913-9..
    1. Dahlström LA, Ylitalo N, Sundström K, et al. Prospective study of human papillomavirus and risk of cervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Cancer 2010;127:1923-30. 10.1002/ijc.25408. .
    1. Pirog EC, Lloveras B, Molijn A, et al. RIS HPV TT study group. HPV prevalence and genotypes in different histological subtypes of cervical adenocarcinoma, a worldwide analysis of 760 cases. Mod Pathol 2014;27:1559-67. 10.1038/modpathol.2014.55. .
    1. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, et al. International HPV screening working group. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014;383:524-32. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62218-7. .
    1. Verdoodt F, Jiang X, Williams M, Schnatz PF, Arbyn M. High-risk HPV testing in the management of atypical glandular cells: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 2016;138:303-10. 10.1002/ijc.29424. .
    1. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006;367:489-98. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68181-6. .
    1. Chin AB, Bristow RE, Korst LM, Walts A, Lagasse LD. The significance of atypical glandular cells on routine cervical cytologic testing in a community-based population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1278-82. 10.1067/mob.2000.106537. .
    1. Chhieng DC, Elgert P, Cohen J-M, Cangiarella JF. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in postmenopausal women. Cancer 2001;93:1-7. 10.1002/1097-0142(20010225)93:1<1::AID-CNCR9000>;2-7. .
    1. Eddy GL, Strumpf KB, Wojtowycz MA, Piraino PS, Mazur MT. Biopsy findings in five hundred thirty-one patients with atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance as defined by the Bethesda system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:1188-95. 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70039-5. .

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe