The Use of the Colposcopically Directed Punch Biopsy in Clinical Practice: A Survey of British Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (BSCCP)-Accredited Colposcopists.

OBJECTIVES: The colposcopically directed punch biopsy has been an integral component of colposcopic practice. In light of the changing landscape of the cervical screening programme, a study was conducted to investigate the current practice of British Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology-accredited colposcopists on technique and rationale for performing a punch biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based questionnaire survey was e-mailed to all British Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology-accredited colposcopists. Questions included selection criteria for performing a punch biopsy, number of biopsies, and technique. Results were analyzed by specialty, experience, and workload. RESULTS: A total of 749 colposcopists responded, 50.2% of the 1,493 total. The respondents were obstetrician and gynecologists (42.9%), gynecologists/oncologists (33.6%), and nurse colposcopists (19.8%). Most colposcopists (78.3%) had more than 5-year colposcopy experience and saw in excess of 11 new cases (73.4%) of abnormal cervical cytology/month. Most colposcopists (56%) aimed to take 2 biopsies to diagnose cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, and very few (16.2%) reported routinely taking random biopsies from normal areas of cervix. Looking at the trends in management in the case scenarios, there was a lower threshold for performing punch biopsy before large loop excision of the transformation zone in younger (age, <25 years) or nulliparous women versus older women (age, >40 years; p < .05). Colposcopists were more likely to take biopsies in women with low-grade cytology/colposcopic findings (71.2%, always or most of the times) as compared with high-grade cytology/colposcopic findings (40.3%, never or rarely). CONCLUSIONS: Colposcopically directed punch biopsy is routinely used by colposcopists; however, techniques, number of biopsies taken, and rationale for performing a biopsy vary greatly between colposcopists.

The Effect of Country of Birth on the Pattern of Disease and Survival From Cervical Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of country of birth on the pattern of disease and survival from cervical cancer in women living in the United Kingdom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective database evaluation study was performed to review all cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in the Pan-Birmingham Cancer Network between 2005 and 2009. Population characteristics and survival data were obtained from the West Midlands Cancer Registry and National Health Authority Information System, United Kingdom. Women's country of birth was classified as being high- (including patients born in the United Kingdom and Ireland), middle-, or low-income countries according to the World Bank country classification. Screening histories data were obtained from the West Midlands Cancer Screening Quality Assurance Reference Centre. Overall survival data were analyzed using the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests to compare between groups. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-four cases were identified. A country of birth was available for 459 cases (94.8%). Cancers detected through screening or interval cancers accounted for 140 (28.9%) of cases compared with 226 (46.7%) where women had not complied with screening. Of the women born outside of the United Kingdom/Ireland, 40 (59.7%) originated from low-income, 23 (34.3%) from middle-income, and 4 (6.0%) from high-income countries. Multivariate analysis identified age (p < .001) and stage (p < .001) at diagnosis as having a significant effect on survival, but no effect was seen from social deprivation (p = .18) or economic status of country of birth (p = .30). DISCUSSION: Country of birth is not an independent prognostic indicator for cervical cancer survival.

Should All Cases of High-Grade Serous Ovarian, Tubal, and Primary Peritoneal Carcinomas Be Reclassified as Tubo-Ovarian Serous Carcinoma?

INTRODUCTION: The dualistic theory of ovarian carcinogenesis proposes that epithelial "ovarian" cancer is not one entity with several histological subtypes but a collection of different diseases arising from cells of different origin, some of which may not originate in the ovarian surface epithelium. METHODS: All cases referred to the Pan-Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer Centre with an ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer between April 2006 and April 2012 were identified from the West Midlands Cancer Registry. Tumors were classified into type I (low-grade endometrioid, clear cell, mucinous, and low-grade serous) and type II (high-grade serous, high-grade endometrioid, carcinosarcoma, and undifferentiated) cancers. RESULTS: Ovarian (83.5%), tubal (4.3%), or primary peritoneal carcinoma (12.2%) were diagnosed in a total of 583 woman. The ovarian tumors were type I in 134 cases (27.5%), type II in 325 cases (66.7%), and contained elements of both type I and type II tumors in 28 cases (5.7%). Most tubal and primary peritoneal cases, however, were type II tumors: 24 (96.0%) and 64 (90.1%), respectively. Only 16 (5.8%) of the ovarian high-grade serous carcinomas were stage I at diagnosis, whereas 240 (86.6%) were stage III+. Overall survival varied between the subtypes when matched for stage. Stage III low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinomas had a significantly better survival compared to clear cell and mucinous cases, P = 0.0134. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the high-grade serous ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal carcinomas when matched for stage (stage III, P = 0.3758; stage IV, P = 0.4820). CONCLUSIONS: Type II tumors are more common than type I and account for most tubal and peritoneal cancers. High-grade serous carcinomas, whether classified as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal, seem to behave as one disease entity with no significant difference in survival outcomes, therefore supporting the proposition of a separate classification of "tubo-ovarian serous carcinoma".

COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening in England.

INTRODUCTION: In England, routine invitations for cervical screening were reduced between April 2020 and June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We quantify the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on attendance and excess diagnoses of cervical cancer (CC). METHODS: Using Public Health England CC screening data on laboratory samples received in 2018 as a baseline we quantify the reduction in screening attendances due to the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and March 2021 for women aged 25-64. We model the impact on excess CC diagnoses assuming once invitations resume 87.5% of women attend within 12 months and 12.5% delay screening for 3 or 5 years (depending on age). RESULTS: The number of samples received at laboratories was 91% lower than expected during April, 85% during May and 43% during June 2020 compared to the same period in 2018. Although on average laboratories received 12.6% more samples between August 2020 and April 2021 than over the same months in 2018, by April 2021 there was a short fall of 200,949 samples (6.4% fewer than in 2018). An excess of 41 CC (4.0 per 100,000 women with a maximum screening delay of 12 months) are predicted to occur among the estimated 1,024,794 women attending this screening round with a delay. An excess of 60 CC (41.0 per 100,000 women) are predicted to occur among the estimated 146,391 women who do not attend this screening round. CONCLUSION: Prompt restoration of cervical screening services limited the impact on excess CC diagnoses. However, in 2020 a 6.4% shortfall of screening samples was observed. Every effort should be made to reassure these women that services are open and safe to attend.

Impact of changes to cervical screening guidelines on age and interval at which women are tested: Population-based study.

BACKGROUND: English cervical screening programme guidelines changed between 2009 and 2012. We explore the impact on the age and intervals at which women receive a cytology test. METHODS: Eligible women were controls from a population-based case-control study in England. Tests taken between 1980 and 2017 were extracted from the call/recall database. Using the Kaplan-Meier estimator by birth cohort and age at (or time since) last test, we explore proportions tested since or prior to a given age, years since previous test, and interval following a negative test. RESULTS: Screening histories from 46,037 women were included. Proportion tested by age 26 has increased from 55% among birth cohorts 1978-1979 to 67% among those born 1990-1991, despite more recent cohorts only having received one invitation (instead of two) prior to age 26. The proportion of women tested at aged 28 with a test three years earlier increased by 20% (from 36% in 1997-2006 to 56% in 2012-2017) whereas the proportion tested at ages 23-27 without a prior test increased from 34% to 80%. The age at last test prior to exiting the programme has decreased: among those born 1928-1931 86% had a test aged 60-65, but only 71% of those born 1947-1951. CONCLUSION: Clear programme guidance alongside quality assurance has improved the cervical screening programme by standardising the age and intervals at which women are screened.

Multidisciplinary colposcopy clinicopathology correlation meetings: an activity review.

OBJECTIVE: Multidisciplinary colposcopy clinicopathology correlation meetings are deemed to be an important aspect of colposcopic quality assurance and are often a focus of attention in colposcopy quality assurance peer-review assessments. Despite this, there are few data on such meetings detailing activity or providing benchmarks for audit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of clinicopathology correlation meetings held during a 3-year period (2004-2006) at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire was performed. RESULTS: A total of 65 meetings were held on a 2 to 4 weekly basis. All meetings contained a representation from cytology, pathology, and colposcopy. A total of 518 cases were listed and 475 were discussed, representing 6.6% of the total patient attendances at the colposcopy clinic during the study period. The main indications for discussion were as follows: cytology/histology discrepancy (35%), cytology/colposcopy discrepancy (10%), management dilemma (25%), and invasive cancer review (18%). A small proportion of cases listed (8%) were not discussed because of administrative problems. Problems were encountered in the quality of documentation, inconsistencies in the recording of findings, conclusions, and management plans. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary colposcopy pathology meetings provide a valuable data resource for recording and analyzing challenging areas in the clinical management of women with abnormal cervical cytology. However, such meetings are time and labor intensive both in terms of personnel and preparation. National guidelines need to be developed to guide clinicians on the frequency and standards required from such meetings.

The use of cervical screening history data to interpret cervical cancer incidence trends.

BACKGROUND: Regional Cervical Screening Quality Assurance Reference Centres maintain and improve the quality of their local cervical screening programmes by monitoring standards based on a range of outcome measures. The classification of invasive cervical cancer screening histories can aid the interpretation of cervical cancer incidence trends in cervical screening services. METHODS: Cervical cancer incidence rates were calculated for cytology laboratory catchment areas, which reflected where local general practitioners sent cervical samples. After reviewing changes in invasive cervical cancer incidence rates in the West Midlands during the period 1988-2004 to identify unusual trends, a detailed retrospective screening history analysis was carried out for one local screening service. RESULTS: An upward trend in invasive cervical cancer incidence in one laboratory catchment area was caused by an increase in cases occurring in women who had not been routinely screened. Quality assurance data provided supporting evidence for non-attendance at screening during this time. CONCLUSIONS: Assigning a screening status to invasive cervical cancers provides valuable information through which to understand the reasons for changes in cancer incidence with time in local screening services. These data can be used to identify areas of potential concern, thereby facilitating quality assurance activities.

A new method for the classification of invasive cervical cancer screening histories.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the ability of existing classification systems to provide screening histories for invasive cervical cancers which can be used in the evaluation of the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP), and to provide the diagnostic route data item required for the National Cancer Data Set (NCDS). METHODS: The ability of existing classification systems to derive unique, consistent screening histories for a cohort of invasive cervical cancers diagnosed in the West Midlands region in the period 2000-03 was tested using two separate timelines for women on normal routine recall (usually 3 or 5 years) and those on early recall having had an inadequate, low-grade abnormal or negative smear. RESULTS: Neither of the existing classification systems was capable of adequately categorizing all invasive cervical cancers. An original classification system incorporating features from the existing systems was therefore developed. This system includes both a 'screening status' component that essentially describes the status of a woman's interaction with the NHSCSP at the time her cancer was diagnosed, and a 'screening history' component that describes the results of previous screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: National adoption of this new screening histories classification system would provide a detailed, consistent, nationally comparable screening history for all invasive cervical cancers which can be used in the national and regional evaluation of the NHSCSP and in local audit by clinical teams supplemented by histology and colposcopy data. The classification categories could be collapsed down to provide the diagnostic route data item required for the NCDS.

Colposcopists' experiences of HPV Test of Cure for the follow up of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To survey lead colposcopists in England to explore their views on the recently introduced HPV Test of Cure (TOC) following treatment for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) and to determine the extent to which it has impacted their clinical practice and affected their patients. METHODS: An online survey was sent to lead colposcopists across England. Questions were asked focusing on the clinicians' confidence in the ability of TOC to guide follow up in various clinical scenarios and how the implementation of TOC had changed patient management. RESULTS: There was a 50% (N=88) response rate. 90% of respondents indicated they were happy with the new procedure. In the follow-up questions, 20% indicated they were uncomfortable with the procedure when it was applied to women who were CIN2+ with incomplete excision at the endocervical margin. Open-ended questions elicited positive aspects of TOC including reduced follow-up, increased reassurance for patients and clinicians and a faster return to the call-recall system. Negative observations included concerns around HPV positive cases, possible false negatives and anxiety in those women who were originally subject to the pre-TOC guidelines and were now returned to call-recall "earlier" than originally indicated to them. 11% of respondents also indicated they work around the new guidelines to some extent. CONCLUSION: Although clinicians are on the whole positive towards the introduction of TOC, concerns were raised which centre primarily around those patients with CIN2+ combined with positive endocervical margins, issues related to HPV positive cases and the possibility of a false negative HPV result. The possibility of patient anxiety due to return to routine screening earlier than originally expected was also identified as a concern.

Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Cervix: Review of a Series of Cases and Correlation With Outcome.

Introduction Neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) of the cervix is associated with a poor prognosis despite multimodal treatment. The correct diagnosis of this tumor type is imperative to provide clinicians and patients with prognostic information and ensure that appropriate treatment is provided. Methods A clinicopathological study was undertaken on all cervical tumors registered as NEC with the West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2009. Of the 45 cases diagnosed during the study period, the tumor samples of 41 cases were traced, anonymized, and then independently reviewed by 2 gynecological pathologists. Results The review confirmed 31/41 (78%) cases to be NEC, which overall, represented 1.3% of all the cervical cancers registered in the West Midlands over the period of the study. In the correct histological context, synaptophysin was the most sensitive and specific positive immunohistochemical marker of NEC differentiation. The cases that on review were confirmed as NEC had a significantly worse outcome than the non-NEC cases: median survival for NEC cases was 33.3 months versus 315.0 months for the non-NEC cases, P = .013. Conclusions Histological review of a series of NECs has shown significantly reduced survival in those patients with confirmed NEC in comparison with those patients where a diagnosis of NEC was not confirmed. We propose morphological and immunohistochemical criteria for the diagnosis of cervical NEC; and discourage unqualified use of the term "small cell carcinoma" as this does not accurately convey the diagnosis of SCNEC. We urge pathologists to use the 2014 World Health Organization classification when reporting these tumors.

Mobile telecommunications and health: report of an investigation into an alleged cancer cluster in Sandwell, West Midlands.

AIMS: Residents of one street expressed concern about the number of incident cancers, following the installation of a nearby mobile phone base station. The investigation explored whether the base station could be responsible for the cancers. METHODS: Data were collected from residents' medical records. GPs and oncologists provided further information. RESULTS: Ward-level cancer incidence and mortality data were also obtained, over four three-year time periods. A total of 19 residents had developed cancer. The collection of cancers did not fulfil the criteria for a cancer cluster. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for all malignant neoplasms (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers) in females (1.38 (95% CI, 1.08-1.74)) and all persons (1.27 (CI, 1.06-1.51)) were significantly higher than in the West Midlands during 2001-3. There were no significant differences for colorectal, female breast and prostate cancers, for any time period. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for non-melanoma skin cancers in males and all persons was significantly lower than in the West Midlands during 1999-2001, and significantly lower in males, females and all persons during 2002-4. CONCLUSIONS: We cannot conclude that the base station was responsible for the cancers. It is unlikely that information around a single base station can either demonstrate or exclude causality.