Cervical Cancer: Open Access
Open Access

Cervical cancer; Biopsy; Histological evaluation; Histopathology; Screening; Diagnosis; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Introduction

Cervical cancer remains a major global health burden, particularly in regions with inadequate screening programs. Early detection through effective diagnostic methods is crucial for improving survival rates and preventing disease progression. Biopsy and histological evaluation serve as gold standards for diagnosing cervical cancer, allowing precise classification of neoplastic changes. The histopathological assessment differentiates between low-grade and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive carcinoma, guiding clinical management [1-3].

This article examines the role of cervical biopsy techniques and histological evaluation in cervical cancer detection. It explores the different biopsy methods, the histopathological classification of cervical cancer, and the clinical implications of accurate diagnosis. By improving diagnostic accuracy and implementing advanced pathological techniques, healthcare providers can enhance patient outcomes and reduce the global cervical cancer burden [4,5].

Description

Types of cervical biopsies

Cervical biopsy involves the extraction of cervical tissue for histopathological analysis. The main types include:

• Punch biopsy: A commonly used method in colposcopy-guided assessment; small tissue samples are obtained from suspicious cervical lesions.
• Endocervical curettage (ECC): Used to collect tissue from the endocervical canal when colposcopic examination is inconclusive.
• Cone biopsy (Conization): Includes Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP) and cold knife conization; used for excisional diagnosis and treatment of high-grade lesions.
• Needle biopsy: Less common, but used when deeper tissue sampling is required.

Indications for Cervical Biopsy

• Abnormal Pap smear results (ASC-H, HSIL, or AGC findings).
• Positive high-risk HPV test.
• Suspicious cervical lesions observed during colposcopy.
• Unexplained abnormal vaginal bleeding.
• Monitoring of previously diagnosed CIN.

Histological evaluation of cervical cancer

Histopathological classification

Histological evaluation differentiates between benign, pre-malignant, and malignant cervical lesions. The primary classifications include [6].

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN):

CIN 1 (Low-grade dysplasia): Confined to the lower third of the epithelium, often regresses.

CIN 2 (Moderate dysplasia): Affects two-thirds of the epithelial thickness, requiring intervention.

CIN 3 (Severe dysplasia and carcinoma in situ): Full-thickness epithelial involvement, high risk of progression to invasive cancer.

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC): Accounts for approximately 80% of cervical cancers; characterized by malignant transformation of squamous epithelial cells [7].

Adenocarcinoma: Originates from glandular epithelium; associated with high-risk HPV strains and more aggressive behavior.

Adenosquamous carcinoma: A mixed histological subtype with both squamous and glandular components.

Role of biomarkers in histological assessment

p16INK4a: A surrogate marker for high-risk HPV-associated neoplasia, used to differentiate CIN 2/3 from benign lesions.

Ki-67: A proliferation marker used to assess cell cycle activity in cervical dysplasia.

HPV DNA testing: Complements histological evaluation in identifying high-risk HPV involvement [8-10].

Discussion

Diagnostic accuracy and challenges

Sensitivity and specificity: Histological evaluation provides high diagnostic accuracy but requires expert interpretation.

Inter observer variability: Differences in pathologist interpretation may lead to discrepancies in CIN grading.

Sampling errors: Inadequate biopsy specimens may result in underdiagnosis or misclassification.

Technological advancements: Digital pathology and artificial intelligence-assisted image analysis are improving diagnostic precision.

Clinical implications of histopathological findings

Histological findings determine the appropriate management approach:

CIN 1: Conservative management with follow-up Pap smears and HPV testing.

CIN 2/3: Requires excisional treatment (LEEP or conization) to prevent progression to invasive cancer.

Invasive cancer: Treatment depends on staging and may involve surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.

Impact of histopathology on patient outcomes

Early and accurate diagnosis: Reduces mortality and morbidity by enabling timely treatment.

Risk stratification: Helps in determining the need for close surveillance or aggressive intervention.

Guidance for personalized therapy: Molecular profiling of biopsied tissue may inform targeted therapeutic strategies.

Conclusion

Biopsy and histological evaluation remain indispensable tools in cervical cancer detection and management. These diagnostic methods provide critical insights into the nature and progression of cervical lesions, ensuring appropriate clinical interventions. Emerging histopathological techniques, including molecular biomarkers and AI-driven diagnostics, are enhancing diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes.

By prioritizing routine cervical screening, timely biopsy, and precise histological assessment, healthcare providers can significantly reduce the global burden of cervical cancer. Strengthening awareness, improving access to diagnostic services, and advancing histopathological research will further improve early detection and treatment success rates.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

1. Busch A, Jäger M, Mayer C, Sowislok A (2021) Functionalization of Synthetic Bone Substitutes. Int J Mol Sci 22: 4412

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Jayash S, Al-Namnam NM, Shaghayegh G (2020) Osteoprotegerin (OPG) pathways in bone diseases and its application in therapeutic perspectives. Biointerface Res Appl Chem 10: 5193-5200.

Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Altieri B, Di Dato C, Martini C, Sciammarella C, Di Sarno A (2019) Bone Metastases in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: From Pathogenesis to Clinical Management. Cancers 11: 1332.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Menéndez S, Gallego B, Murillo D, Rodríguez A, Rodríguez R, et al. (2021) Cancer Stem Cells as a Source of Drug Resistance in Bone Sarcomas. J Clin Med 10: 2621.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Rajani R, Gibbs CP (2012) Treatment of Bone Tumors. Surg Pathol Clin 5: 301-318.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Thanindratarn P, Dean DC, Nelson SD, Hornicek FJ, Duan Z, et al. (2019) Advances in immune checkpoint inhibitors for bone sarcoma therapy. J Bone Oncol 15: 100221.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Ferracini R, Martínez-Herreros I, Russo A, Casalini T, Rossi F, et al. (2018) Scaffolds as Structural Tools for Bone-Targeted Drug Delivery. Pharmaceutics 10: 122.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Cortini M, Baldini N, Avnet S (2019) New Advances in the Study of Bone Tumors: A Lesson from the 3D Environment. Front Physiol 10: 814.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66: 7-30.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Rosati LM, Herman JM (2017) Role of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Elderly and Poor Performance Status Patients with Pancreatic Cancer. J Oncol Pract 13: 157-166.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref