Microinvasive adenocarcinoma (MIAC) of the uterine cervix is rare in pregnancy. Published data on conservative treatment of MIAC both in pregnant and nonpregnant women are scarce. A conservatively treated case of MIAC in a 13-week-pregnant woman after a diagnosis of atypical glandular cells (AGC) on pap smear at the 6th week of pregnancy is presented. The problems of suspected adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) on biopsy and MIAC on cone biopsy in pregnancy, as well as the risks and benefits of a conservative treatment are discussed. After colposcopic guide laser cervical conization and expression of informed consent the patient underwent followup and vaginal delivery at 40 weeks plus 3 days of gestation. In this case, no obstetric complication has been recorded after the cervical conization, and after a followup of 18 months the patient was alive and free of disease, with negative results as far as pap smear, colposcopy, HPV status, and cervical curettage are concerned. In a stage Ia1 disease of endocervical type, with clear margins and without lymph-vascular space invasion, cervical conization performed during the second trimester may be considered a definitive and safe treatment, at least up to delivery, after expression of informed consent by the woman. 1. Introduction Microinvasive adenocarcinoma of the cervix (MIAC) is occasionally found in the definitive histology in the specimens of conization performed because of squamous or glandular intraepithelial cervical neoplasia or suspicious for adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS). MIAC corresponds to FIGO stages Ia1 and Ia2, and its frequency, compared to all microinvasive cervical cancers (MICC), is about 12% [1]. The large presence of cytological-based screening programs in developed countries led to an increasing number of diagnoses in younger women [2], often in childbearing age. There are enough data on the safety of fertility-sparing treatment of squamous microinvasive cancers (MISC) [3–5] but few on fertility sparing treatment of MIAC [6, 7], in particular, with long-term followup [8, 9]. The occurrence of cervical cancer during pregnancy involves ethical and technical problems, related to the survival of the woman and fetal viability. Although the conservative treatment of MISC [10, 11] and small stage IB1 squamous cancer during pregnancy [12, 13] seems to be safe, scarce data are available for MIAC conservative treatment in pregnancy [2]. This case report is an addition to the few published cases of conservatively treated MIACs during pregnancy. 2. Case Presentation A 32-year-old pregnant woman, PARA 0000,
References
[1]
A. G. ？st？r, “Early invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix,” International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 29–38, 2000.
[2]
B. F. Pettersson, S. Andersson, K. Hellman, and A.-C. Hellstr？m, “Invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix associated with pregnancy: 90 years of experience,” Cancer, vol. 116, no. 10, pp. 2343–2349, 2010.
[3]
J. D. Wright, R. Nathavithrana, S. N. Lewin et al., “Fertility-conserving surgery for young women with stage IA1 cervical cancer: safety and access,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 585–590, 2010.
[4]
S. Costa, E. Marra, G. N. Martinelli et al., “Outcome of conservatively treated microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix during a 10-year follow-up,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 33–38, 2009.
[5]
S. W. Lee, Y.-M. Kim, W.-S. Son et al., “The efficacy of conservative management after conization in patients with stage IA1 microinvasive cervical carcinoma,” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 209–215, 2009.
[6]
K. C. H. M. Bisseling, R. L. M. Bekkers, R. M. Rome, and M. A. Quinn, “Treatment of microinvasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: a retrospective study and review of the literature,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 424–430, 2007.
[7]
J. O. Schorge, K. R. Lee, and E. E. Sheets, “Prospective management of stage IA1 cervical adenocarcinoma by conization alone to preserve fertility: a preliminary report,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 217–220, 2000.
[8]
F. Sopracordevole, V. Canzonieri, G. Giorda, G. de Piero, E. Lucia, and E. Campagnutta, “Conservative treatment of microinvasive adenocarcinoma of uterine cervix: long-term follow-up,” Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 381–386, 2012.
[9]
T. Yahata, K. Nishino, K. Kashima et al., “Conservative treatment of stage IA1 adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix with a long-term follow-up,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1063–1066, 2010.
[10]
K. Schaefer, D. Peters, S. Aulmann, C. Sohn, and M. H. Eichbaum, “Value and feasibility of LLETZ procedures for pregnant women with suspected high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and microinvasive cervical cancer,” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 141–144, 2012.
[11]
J. J. O. Herod, S. B. Decruze, and R. D. Patel, “A report of two cases of the management of cervical cancer in pregnancy by cone biopsy and laparoscopic pelvic node dissection,” BJOG, vol. 117, no. 12, pp. 1558–1561, 2010.
[12]
S.-I. Ishioka, Y. Ezaka, T. Endo et al., “Outcomes of planned delivery delay in pregnant patients with invasive gynecologic cancer,” International Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 321–325, 2009.
[13]
E. González Bosquet, A. Castillo, M. Medina, M. Su？ol, A. Capdevila, and J. M. Lailla, “Stage 1B cervical cancer in a pregnant woman at 25 weeks of gestation,” European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 276–279, 2008.
[14]
J. Jordan, P. Martin-Hirsch, M. Arbyn et al., “European guidelines for clinical management of abnormal cervical cytology. Part 2,” Cytopathology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 5–16, 2009.
[15]
S. S. Wang, M. E. Sherman, S. G. Silverberg et al., “Pathological characteristics of cervical adenocarcinoma in a multi-center U.S.-based study,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 541–546, 2006.
[16]
P. F. Schnatz, K. E. Sharpless, and D. M. O'Sullivan, “Use of human papillomavirus testing in the management of atypical glandular cells,” Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 94–101, 2009.
[17]
L. Geldenhuys and M. L. Murray, “Sensitivity and specificity of the pap smear for glandular lesions of the cervix and endometrium,” Acta Cytologica, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 47–50, 2007.
[18]
M. R. Nucci and R. H. Young, “Arias-stella reaction of the endocervix: a report of 18 cases with emphasis on its varied histology and differential diagnosis,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 608–612, 2004.
[19]
A. C. Fleury, M. L. Birsner, and A. N. Fader, “Management of the abnormal Papanicolaou smear and colposcopy in pregnancy: an evidenced-based review,” Minerva Ginecologica, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 137–148, 2012.
[20]
H. Masamoto, Y. Nagai, M. Inamine et al., “Outcome of pregnancy after laser conization: implications for infection as a causal link with preterm birth,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 838–842, 2008.
[21]
M.-Y. Shin, E.-S. Seo, S.-J. Choi et al., “The role of prophylactic cerclage in preventing preterm delivery after electrosurgical conization,” Journal of Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 230–236, 2010.
[22]
T. S. Dunn, V. Ginsburg, and D. Wolf, “Loop-cone cerclage in pregnancy: a 5-year review,” Gynecologic oncology, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 577–580, 2003.
[23]
M. Fambrini, C. Penna, M. G. Fallani et al., “Feasibility and outcome of laser CO2 conization performed within the 18th week of gestation,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 127–131, 2007.
[24]
M. Tsuritani, Y. Watanabe, Y. Kotani, T. Kataoka, H. Ueda, and H. Hoshiai, “Retrospective evaluation of CO2 laser conization in pregnant women with carcinoma in situ or microinvasive carcinoma,” Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 230–233, 2009.
[25]
T. Yahata, M. Numata, K. Kashima et al., “Conservative treatment of stage IA1 adenocarcinoma of the cervix during pregnancy,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 49–52, 2008.
[26]
P. Singh, J. Scurry, and A. Proietto, “Lethal endometrial recurrence after cone biopsy for microinvasive cervical adenocarcinoma,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 413–417, 2008.
[27]
B. M. Ronnett, A. V. Yemelyanova, R. Vang et al., “Endocervical adenocarcinomas with ovarian metastases: analysis of 29 cases with emphasis on minimally invasive cervical tumors and the ability of the metastases to simulate primary ovarian neoplasms,” The American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 1835–1853, 2008.
[28]
H. M. Shingleton, M. C. Bell, A. Fremgen et al., “Is there really a difference in survival of women with squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and adenosquamous cell carcinoma of the cervix?” Cancer, vol. 76, no. 10, supplement, pp. 1948–1955, 1995.
[29]
J. Hou, G. L. Goldberg, C. R. Qualls, D. Y. S. Kuo, A. Forman, and H. O. Smith, “Risk factors for poor prognosis in microinvasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix (IA1 and IA2): a pooled analysis,” Gynecologic Oncology, vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 135–142, 2011.
[30]
J. O. Schorge, K. R. Lee, S. J. Lee, C. E. Flynn, A. Goodman, and E. E. Sheets, “Early cervical adenocarcinoma: selection criteria for radical surgery,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 386–390, 1999.
[31]
A. Baalbergen, F. Smedts, and T. J. M. Helmerhorst, “Conservative therapy in microinvasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix is justified: an analysis of 59 cases and a review of the literature,” International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1640–1645, 2011.
