Isthmic‐vaginal smear cytology in the follow‐up after radical vaginal trachelectomy for early stage cervical cancer: Is it safe?

BACKGROUND Isthmic-vaginal cytology is a follow-up method in patients who have undergone radical vaginal trachelectomy (RVT) for early cervical cancer. However, to the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding its ability to monitor patients and diagnose disease recurrence. Herein, the authors report their experience with cytology after RVT compared with cytology in patients after cone biopsy and women undergoing screening. METHODS A database of 563 specimens from 303 patients was analyzed retrospectively (RVT in 361 specimens, conization in 102 specimens, and screening in 100 specimens). The following criteria were applied: Bethesda system, the presence of endocervical and metaplasia cells, regeneration criteria, vaginal flora, and morphological signs of human papillomavirus. The analysis was performed by 2 cytopathologists. Differences between the groups and correlation between the cytopathologists were analyzed. RESULTS Smears without endocervical and metaplasia cells were significantly less frequent among the patients who underwent RVT. There was no difference in regeneration signs, vaginal flora, and morphologic signs of human papillomavirus between the groups. After RVT, 26/23 smears (cytopathologist 1/cytopathologist 2) smears were diagnosed as abnormal. Biopsies revealed 7 cases of dysplasia and 1 case of disease recurrence. After conization, 1 patient was diagnosed with a low-grade lesion on cytology; follow-up cytology was normal. In the screening, 10/13 smears were diagnosed with lesions on cytology; biopsy revealed dysplasia in 2 cases. The correlation between both cytopathologists was high. CONCLUSIONS After RVT, histological verification of cytology is frequently needed. The reasons might include alterations of anatomy, regeneration, and inflammation process after RVT. Cytopathologists should become familiar with the spectrum of changes in post-RVT cytology and communication between cytopathologists and clinicians should be improved. This might reduce false-positive results. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2014;122:349–358. © 2014 American Cancer Society.