Human Papillomavirus Testing and Size of CIN3: Implications for the Risk of Microinvasive Cervical Carcinoma
Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Setting
2.2. Screening Tests
2.3. Colposcopy and Local Excision of the Cervix
2.4. Surgical Specimen Processing and Reporting
2.5. Eligibility Criteria
2.6. Statistical Methods
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of Patients
3.2. Association Between Detection Mode and Size/Involvement
3.3. Association Between Detection Mode and Presence of Stromal Microinvasion
3.4. Association Between Size/Involvement and Presence of Stromal Microinvasion
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ronco, G.; Dillner, J.; Elfström, K.M.; Tunesi, S.; Snijders, P.J.; Arbyn, M.; Kitchener, H.; Segnan, N.; Gilham, C.; Giorgi-Rossi, P.; et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: Follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014, 383, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherman, M.E.; Wang, S.S.; Tarone, R.; Rich, L.; Schiffman, M. Histopathologic extent of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 lesions in the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion triage study: Implications for subject safety and lead-time bias. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2003, 12, 372–379. [Google Scholar]
- Jeronimo, J.; Schiffman, M. Colposcopy at a crossroads. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 195, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crothers, B.A. Cytologic-histologic correlation: Where are we now, and where are we going? Cancer Cytopathol. 2018, 126, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tidbury, P.; Singer, A.; Jenkins, D. CIN 3: The role of lesion size in invasion. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1992, 99, 583–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- al-Nafussi, A.I.; Hughes, D.E. Histological features of CIN3 and their value in predicting invasive microinvasive squamous carcinoma. J. Clin. Pathol. 1994, 47, 799–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubio, C.A.; Thomassen, P.; Söderberg, G.; Kock, Y. Big cones and little cones. Histopathology 1978, 2, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Codde, E.; Munro, A.; Stewart, C.; Spilsbury, K.; Bowen, S.; Codde, J.; Steel, N.; Leung, Y.; Tan, J.; Salfinger, S.G.; et al. Risk of persistent or recurrent cervical neoplasia in patients with ‘pure’ adenocarcinoma-in-situ (AIS) or mixed AIS and high-grade cervical squamous neoplasia (cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN 2/3)): A population-based study. BJOG 2018, 125, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kyrgiou, M.; Athanasiou, A.; Kalliala, I.E.J.; Paraskevaidi, M.; Mitra, A.; Martin-Hirsch, P.P.; Arbyn, M.; Bennett, P.; Paraskevaidis, E. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial lesions and early invasive disease. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 11, CD012847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Athanasiou, A.; Veroniki, A.A.; Efthimiou, O.; Kalliala, I.; Naci, H.; Bowden, S.; Paraskevaidi, M.; Arbyn, M.; Lyons, D.; Martin-Hirsch, P.; et al. Comparative effectiveness and risk of preterm birth of local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and stage IA1 cervical cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2022, 23, 1097–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Munmany, M.; Marimon, L.; Cardona, M.; Nonell, R.; Juiz, M.; Astudillo, R.; Ordi, J.; Torné, A.; Del Pino, M. Small lesion size measured by colposcopy may predict absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in a large loop excision of the transformation zone specimen. BJOG 2017, 124, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M.C.; Hartley, R.B. Cervical crypt involvement by intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet. Gynecol. 1980, 55, 546–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimura, M.; Matsumoto, T.; Morizane, T.; Sonoue, H.; Ogishima, D.; Kinoshita, K. Histopathological study of the spreading neoplastic cells in cervical glands and surface epithelia in cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia and microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma: Ki-67 immunostaining is a useful marker for pathological diagnosis from the gland involvement site. Pathol. Int. 2006, 56, 428–433. [Google Scholar]
- Okazaki, C.; Focchi, G.R.; Taha, N.S.; Almeida, P.Q.; Schimidt, M.A.; Speck, N.M.; Ribalta, J.C. Depth of glandular crypts and its involvement in squamous intraepithelial cervical neoplasia submitted to large loop excision of transformation zone (LLETZ). Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 2013, 34, 48–50. [Google Scholar]
- Ganesan, R.; Singh, N.; Williams, A.T. Dataset for Histological Reporting of Cervical Neoplasia; The Royal College of Pathologists: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Kyrgiou, M.; Athanasiou, A.; Arbyn, M.; Lax, S.F.; Raspollini, M.R.; Nieminen, P.; Carcopino, X.; Bornstein, J.; Gultekin, M.; Paraskevaidis, E. Terminology for cone dimensions after local conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and early invasive cervical cancer: 2022 consensus recommendations from ESGO, EFC, IFCPC, and ESP. Lancet Oncol. 2022, 23, e385–e392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abdul-Karim, F.W.; Fu, Y.S.; Reagan, J.W.; Wentz, W.B. Morphometric study of intraepithelial neoplasia of the uterine cervix. Obstet. Gynecol. 1982, 60, 210–214. [Google Scholar]
- Zyla, R.E.; Gien, L.T.; Vicus, D.; Olkhov-Mitsel, E.; Mirkovic, J.; Nofech-Mozes, S.; Djordjevic, B.; Parra-Herran, C. The prognostic role of horizontal and circumferential tumor extent in cervical cancer: Implications for the 2019 FIGO staging system. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020, 158, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boonstra, H.; Aalders, J.G.; Koudstaal, J.; Oosterhuis, J.W.; Janssens, J. Minimum extension and appropriate topographic position of tissue destruction for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet. Gynecol. 1990, 75, 227–231. [Google Scholar]
- Backhouse, A.; Stewart, C.J.; Koay, M.H.; Hunter, A.; Tran, H.; Farrell, L.; Ruba, S. Cytologic findings in stratified mucin-producing intraepithelial lesion of the cervix: A report of 34 cases. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2016, 44, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, N.; Rous, B.; Ganesan, R. 2018 FIGO Staging System for Cervical Cancer: Summary and Comparison with 2009 FIGO Staging System; The British Association for Gynaecological Pathologists: Derby, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VanderWeele, T.J. Mediation analysis: A practitioner’s guide. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2016, 37, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imai, K.; Keele, L.; Tingley, D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol. Methods 2010, 15, 309–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hicks, R.; Tingley, D. Causal mediation analysis. Stata J. 2011, 11, 605–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergqvist, L.; Virtanen, A.; Kalliala, I.; Bützow, R.; Jakobsson, M.; Heinonen, A.; Louvanto, K.; Dillner, J.; Nieminen, P.; Aro, K. Predictors for regression and progression of actively surveilled cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2: A prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2025, 104, 763–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mantoani, P.T.S.; Vieira, J.F.; Menchete, T.T.; Jammal, M.P.; Michelin, M.A.; Barcelos, A.C.M.; Murta, E.F.C.; Nomelini, R.S. CIN extension at colposcopy: Relation to treatment and blood parameters. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2022, 44, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Santos, B.M.D.; Araujo Júnior, E.; Zanine, R.M. Is the colposcopic lesion size a predictor of high-grade lesions in young patients? Einstein 2024, 22, eAO0462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Minareci, Y.; Ak, N.; Tosun, O.A.; Sozen, H.; Disci, R.; Topuz, S.; Salihoglu, M.Y. Predictors of high-grade residual disease after repeat conization in patients with positive surgical margins. Ginekol. Pol. 2022, 93, 962–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Tian, P.; Li, B.; Xu, L.; Qiu, L.; Bi, Z.; Chen, L.; Sui, L. Risk-stratified management of cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion based on machine learning. J. Med. Virol. 2024, 96, e70016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bittencourt, D.D.; Zanine, R.M.; Sebastião, A.P.M.; Ribas, C.M. Risk factors for persistence or recurrence of high-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions. Rev. Col. Bras. Cir. 2023, 50, e20233537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarmulowicz, M.R.; Jenkins, D.; Barton, S.E.; Goodall, A.L.; Hollingworth, A.; Singer, A. Cytological status and lesion size: A further dimension in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1989, 96, 1061–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papoutsis, D.; Panikkar, J.; Underwood, M.; Blundell, S.; Sahu, B.; Blackmore, J.; Reed, N. Endocervical crypt involvement by CIN2-3 as a predictor of cytology recurrence after excisional cervical treatment. J. Low. Genit. Tract Dis. 2015, 19, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.J.; Werner, C.L.; Darragh, T.M.; Guido, R.S.; Mathews, C.; Moscicki, A.B.; Mitchell, M.M.; Schiffman, M.; Wentzensen, N.; Massad, L.S.; et al. ASCCP colposcopy standards: Role of colposcopy, benefits, potential harms, and terminology for colposcopic practice. J. Low. Genit. Tract Dis. 2017, 21, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waxman, A.G.; Conageski, C.; Silver, M.I.; Tedeschi, C.; Stier, E.A.; Apgar, B.; Huh, W.K.; Wentzensen, N.; Massad, L.S.; Khan, M.J.; et al. ASCCP colposcopy standards: How do we perform colposcopy? Implications for establishing standards. J. Low. Genit. Tract Dis. 2017, 21, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bartels, H.C.; Postle, J.; Rogers, A.C.; Brennan, D. Prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccination to prevent recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2020, 30, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jentschke, M.; Kampers, J.; Becker, J.; Sibbertsen, P.; Hillemanns, P. Prophylactic HPV vaccination after conization: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccine 2020, 38, 6402–6409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ronco, G.; Brezzi, S.; Carozzi, F.; Dalla Palma, P.; Giorgi-Rossi, P.; Minucci, D.; Naldoni, C.; Segnan, N.; Zappa, M.; Zorzi, M.; et al. The New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening randomised controlled trial. An overview of results during the first phase of recruitment. Gynecol. Oncol. 2007, 107, S230–S232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dalla Palma, P.; Giorgi Rossi, P.; Collina, G.; Buccoliero, A.M.; Ghiringhello, B.; Gilioli, E.; Onnis, G.L.; Aldovini, D.; Galanti, G.; Casadei, G.; et al. The reproducibility of CIN diagnoses among different pathologists: Data from histology reviews from a multicenter randomized study. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2009, 132, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pruski, D.; Millert-Kalinska, S.; Lewek, A.; Kedzia, W. Sensitivity and specificity of HR HPV E6/E7 mRNA test in detecting cervical squamous intraepithelial lesion and cervical cancer. Ginekol. Pol. 2019, 90, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Pino, M.; Sierra, A.; Marimon, L.; Martí Delgado, C.; Rodriguez-Trujillo, A.; Barnadas, E.; Saco, A.; Torné, A.; Ordi, J. CADM1, MAL, and miR124 promoter methylation as biomarkers of transforming cervical intrapithelial lesions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]



| Detection Mode | Total Number of Patients | Patients with a Lesion Size >6 mm | Patients with a Massive Glandular Crypt Involvement | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number (%) | Odds Ratio (95% CI) * | p | Number (%) | Odds Ratio (95% CI) * | p | |||
| Cervical cytology | 2588 | 1299 (50.2) | 1.00 (ref.) | <0.001 | 678 (26.2) | 1.00 (ref.) | <0.001 | |
| HPV test | 1156 | 455 (39.4) | 0.67 (0.58–0.77) | 167 (14.4) | 0.47 (0.39–0.56) | |||
| Detection Mode | Total Number of Patients | Number (%) of Patients by Size/Involvement * | Odds Ratio (95% CI) † | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤6 mm, | >6 mm, | ≤6 mm, | >6 mm, | ≤6 mm, | >6 mm, | ≤6 mm, | >6 mm, | |||
| <Massive | <Massive | Massive | Massive | <Massive | <Massive | Massive | Massive | |||
| Cervical cytology | 2588 | 1106 (42.7) | 804 (31.1) | 183 (7.1) | 495 (19.1) | 1.00 (ref.) | 1.00 (ref.) | 1.00 (ref.) | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| HPV test | 1156 | 665 (57.5) | 324 (28.0) | 36 (3.1) | 131 (11.3) | 1.00 (ref.) | 0.71 (0.60–0.83) | 0.33 (0.22–0.47) | 0.44 (0.35–0.55) | |
| Total Number of Patients | Patients with Stromal Microinvasion | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number (%) | Odds Ratio (95% CI) * | p | ||
| Patient age | 0.250 | |||
| 30–39 | 1934 | 49 (2.5) | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| 40–49 | 1221 | 40 (3.3) | 1.40 (0.91–2.14) | |
| 50–59 | 466 | 16 (3.4) | 1.59 (0.89–2.85) | |
| 60–64 | 123 | 2 (1.6) | 0.74 (0.18–3.07) | |
| Detection mode | 0.004 | |||
| Cervical cytology | 2588 | 87 (3.4) | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| HPV test | 1156 | 20 (1.7) | 0.48 (0.29–0.78) | |
| Total Number of Patients | Patients with Stromal Microinvasion | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number (%) | Odds Ratio (95% CI) * | p | ||
| Patient age | 0.327 | |||
| 30–39 | 1934 | 49 (2.5) | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| 40–49 | 1221 | 40 (3.3) | 1.30 (0.84–2.00) | |
| 50–59 | 466 | 16 (3.4) | 1.64 (0.90–2.98) | |
| 60–64 | 123 | 2 (1.6) | 0.76 (0.18–3.26) | |
| Detection mode | 0.148 | |||
| Cervical cytology | 2588 | 87 (3.4) | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| HPV test | 1156 | 20 (1.7) | 0.69 (0.41–1.14) | |
| Size/involvement † | <0.001 | |||
| ≤6 mm, <massive | 1771 | 8 (0.5) | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| >6 mm, <massive | 1128 | 25 (2.2) | 4.93 (2.21–11.00) | |
| ≤6, massive | 219 | 12 (5.5) | 11.91 (4.79–29.63) | |
| >6 mm, massive | 626 | 62 (9.9) | 23.07 (10.94–48.65) | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Preti, M.; Biggeri, A.; Ronco, G.; Kyrgiou, M.; Rizzolo, R.; Armaroli, P.; Gallio, N.; Gultekin, M.; Zamagni, F.; Costa, S.; et al. Human Papillomavirus Testing and Size of CIN3: Implications for the Risk of Microinvasive Cervical Carcinoma. Cancers 2026, 18, 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030396
Preti M, Biggeri A, Ronco G, Kyrgiou M, Rizzolo R, Armaroli P, Gallio N, Gultekin M, Zamagni F, Costa S, et al. Human Papillomavirus Testing and Size of CIN3: Implications for the Risk of Microinvasive Cervical Carcinoma. Cancers. 2026; 18(3):396. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030396
Chicago/Turabian StylePreti, Mario, Annibale Biggeri, Guglielmo Ronco, Maria Kyrgiou, Raffaella Rizzolo, Paola Armaroli, Niccolò Gallio, Murat Gultekin, Federica Zamagni, Silvano Costa, and et al. 2026. "Human Papillomavirus Testing and Size of CIN3: Implications for the Risk of Microinvasive Cervical Carcinoma" Cancers 18, no. 3: 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030396
APA StylePreti, M., Biggeri, A., Ronco, G., Kyrgiou, M., Rizzolo, R., Armaroli, P., Gallio, N., Gultekin, M., Zamagni, F., Costa, S., Vieira-Baptista, P., Borella, F., Cosma, S., Macrì, L., Bergeron, C., Mancini, S., De Marco, L., Tota, D., & Bucchi, L. (2026). Human Papillomavirus Testing and Size of CIN3: Implications for the Risk of Microinvasive Cervical Carcinoma. Cancers, 18(3), 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18030396

