Vulvar Cytology: Useful or Not?

Sec62/Ki67 and p16/Ki67 dual-staining immunocytochemistry in vulvar cytology for the identification of vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia and vulvar cancer: a pilot study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyze the diagnostic performance of a newly established immunocytochemical dual-staining protocol for the simultaneous expression of SEC62 and Ki67 in vulvar liquid-based cytology specimens for the identification of vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) and vulvar cancer. In addition, we investigated the p16/Ki67 dual stain, which has already been established in cervical cytology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this pilot study, residual material from liquid-based cytology was collected retrospectively from 45 women. The presence of one or more double-immunoreactive cells was considered as a positive test result for Sec62/Ki67 and p16/Ki67 dual staining. The test results were correlated with the course of histology.

RESULTS

All cases of VIN and vulvar cancer were Sec62/Ki67 and p16/Ki67 dual-stain positive, and normal and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions were all negative. The sensitivity of cytology for VIN + cases was 100% (22/22), whereas punch biopsy classified one case of vulvar carcinoma as inflammation. All cases with high-intensity (grades 3 and 4) Sec62 staining in Sec62/Ki67-positive cases were carcinomas.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that Sec62/Ki67 and p16 Ki67 dual-staining cytology could be a promising adjunctive diagnostic tool for VIN and squamous cell carcinoma, in addition to standard histology.

Screening and follow up of vulval skin disorders

Vulval squamous cell carcinoma is relatively rare; however, up to 20% of women have significant vulval symptoms during their lifetime. Formal screening programmes for vulval disease have not been established. The evidence for the use of vulval cytology and vulvoscopy is reviewed. No randomised-controlled trials have compared follow-up regimens, and although a few consensus documents have been published, formal guidelines are lacking in Grade A evidence. With increasing pressure on healthcare resources, the possibility of identifying high-risk groups to optimise the use of follow up in specialist clinics is explored. Vulval disease is uncommon and there is no evidence that screening would decrease incidence. If high-risk groups can be identified, follow up should take place in specialised vulval clinics with experienced clinicians who are trained in vulval disease. Women with uncomplicated vulval conditions should be discharged to patient-initiated follow up or primary care. Central to the reduction of mortality and morbidity is increased awareness of vulval conditions among women and improved education of healthcare professionals, with particular understanding of the importance of physical examination.