HPV infection is closely related to cervical cancer, and it can be said that HPV infection is the main cause of cervical cancer development, so HPV screening is relevant as a necessary tool for cervical cancer screening. However, HPV positivity is not equal to cervical cancer, nor is it equal to cervical CIN, so HPV-positive patients are only at risk of developing cervical cancer, but not equal to being patients. Since 70-80% of cervical cancer patients are HPV 16/18 positive, the more popular view for HPV positive patients, especially high risk HPV 16/18 positive patients, is that they can be referred immediately for colposcopy. However, my opinion is that when a patient is tested positive for HPV, there is no need to rush to treat with medication. For HPV 16/18 positive, referral for colposcopy is possible, and for other types of HPV positive, it depends on the cytology results. If cytology is negative or suspicious, you can follow up and observe; if cytology is positive, refer for colposcopy. The question of whether to use medication is considered only when all tests have ruled out cervical lesions and only HPV is positive. Medication for HPV infection has a placebo effect in a sense, and it is impossible to say whether the change to negative after medication is the effect of medication or autoimmune clearance. Therefore, my opinion is to diagnose HPV positively step by step and rule out cervical lesions before considering medication. When medication is given, patients should be told that they should still be reviewed regularly and that medication does not always solve the problem. Colposcopy is becoming more and more sophisticated, but are there limitations to its clinical application? Some patients may have CIN I pathology under colposcopy, but the actual pathology after conization shows CIN II. For these patients, they may be missed if conization is not done. Could you also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of colposcopy in clinical use? It is true that colposcopy has been widely used at all levels of hospitals, for example, colposcopic biopsy for CIN I, which is the most confusing problem for clinicians, but CIN II-III does not need to be considered as a definite cervical conization. Doing conization is a bit excessive. However, for biopsy CIN I, we also need to know about the pre-biopsy cytology, if the pre-biopsy cytology is highly pathological, it proves that there is a contradiction between cytology and biopsy. Since the biopsy is of the cervical surface, the cytology brush can reach the cervical canal and cytology rarely has false positives, in which case perhaps the lesion is hiding deep in the cervical canal and a diagnostic conization should be done. If the cytology is only atypical cells or low grade lesions, it depends on the colposcopic evaluation before biopsy. If it is a type I transformation zone, the cervical squamous-columnar junction is all on the surface and the lesion is not very extensive, especially if some report cards are only focal CIN I, then the biopsy has removed the lesion and can be followed up regularly. If the colposcopy is unsatisfactory colposcopy, the transformation zone is not on the surface of the cervix and the biopsy of CIN I is a bit blind, then perhaps the lesion is still deep and should be evaluated colposcopically again to clarify the extent of the lesion, more attention should be paid to the presence of lesions in the cervical canal, if there are suspicious lesions in the cervical canal, diagnostic LEEP can be done. if CIN I persists for 2-3 years, diagnostic LEEP is also indicated. Therefore, all aspects of the management of CIN I should be considered. Cervical glandular epithelial lesions are relatively rare in clinical practice and it is often difficult for young doctors to differentiate them from other diseases. This is actually a very interesting question, as cervical adenovascular lesions are not very prevalent, are rare clinically, and are often found during cervical screening biopsies and are not even considered before the biopsy. My personal opinion is that if the cytology result is atypical glandular epithelial cells, it must be brought to your attention because glandular epithelial cells originate from the cervical canal and often there is glandular epithelial lesion in the cervical canal. If the patient complains of unusually heavy and thin leukorrhea, or if the cytology is sometimes negative and sometimes suspicious, and the HPV is consistently positive, and the surface of the cervix is smooth and nothing is visible, then it is important to pay attention to the cervical ducts, and glandular epithelial lesions that require special attention to detect. In addition, glandular epithelial lesions have no specific colposcopic presentation because the colposcopic terms we use such as vinegar white epithelium, punctate area and mosaic are summarized according to the presentation of squamous epithelial lesions and there are not many terms summarized for glandular epithelial lesions on colposcopy, so one has to be especially careful to detect them.