Literature DB >> 20716265

Consequences in women of participating in a study of the natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3.

Margaret R E McCredie1, Charlotte Paul, Katrina J Sharples, Judith Baranyai, Gabriele Medley, David C G Skegg, Ronald W Jones.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 1063 women diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) (previously termed carcinoma in situ- CIS) in the National Women's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. The study describes the clinical management and outcomes for women with CIN3 diagnosed in the decade of 1965-1974, when treatment with curative intent was withheld in an unethical clinical study of the natural history of CIS. A comparison is made with women who were diagnosed earlier (1955-1964) and later (1975-1976). AIMS: The aim of the study is to record the medical encounters, frequency and management of cytological abnormalities and the occurrence of invasive cancers. The medical records, cytology and histopathology were reviewed and data linked with cancer and death registers.
RESULTS: Women diagnosed with CIN3 in 1965-1974 (n = 422), compared with those diagnosed earlier (n = 385) or later (n = 256): (i) were less likely to have initial treatment with curative intent (51% vs 95 and 85%, respectively); (ii) had more follow-up biopsies (P < 0.0005); (iii) were more likely to have positive cytology during follow-up (P < 0.005) and positive smears that were not followed within six months by a treatment with curative intent (P < 0.005); and (iv) experienced a higher risk of cancer of the cervix or vaginal vault (RR = 3.3 compared with the first period, 95% CI: 1.7-5.3). Among women diagnosed in 1965-1974, those initially managed by punch or wedge biopsy alone had a cancer risk ten times (95% CI: 3.9-25.7) higher than women initially treated with curative intent.
CONCLUSIONS: During the 'clinical study' (1965-1974), women underwent numerous interventions that were aimed to observe rather than treat their condition, and their risk of cancer was substantially increased.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20716265     DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01170.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol        ISSN: 0004-8666            Impact factor:   2.100


  13 in total

1.  Correcting Error in Academic Publishing: An Ethical Responsibility.

Authors:  Phillida Bunkle
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 1.352

2.  Paul and Brookes Respond.

Authors:  Charlotte Paul; Barbara Brookes
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 3.  [Precancerous lesions of the uterine cervix: morphology and molecular pathology].

Authors:  L-C Horn; K Klostermann
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.011

4.  Cotesting in Cervical Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Douglas P Malinowski; Molly Broache; Laurence Vaughan; Jeff Andrews; Devin Gary; Harvey W Kaufman; Damian P Alagia; Zhen Chen; Agnieszka Onisko; R Marshall Austin
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 2.493

5.  Discrimination of grade 2 and 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia by means of analysis of water soluble proteins recovered from cervical biopsies.

Authors:  Kai-Erik Uleberg; Ane Cecilie Munk; Cato Brede; Einar Gudlaugsson; Bianca van Diermen; Ivar Skaland; Anais Malpica; Emiel Am Janssen; Anne Hjelle; Jan Pa Baak
Journal:  Proteome Sci       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 2.480

6.  Low Risk of Cervical Cancer/Precancer Among Most Women Under Surveillance Postcolposcopy.

Authors:  Maria Demarco; Li C Cheung; Walter K Kinney; Nicolas Wentzensen; Thomas S Lorey; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Brian Befano; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.925

7.  Role of quantitative p16INK4A mRNA assay and digital reading of p16INK4A immunostained sections in diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  Nataša Vasiljević; Paul D Carter; Caroline Reuter; Rhian Warman; Adam R Brentnall; James R Carton; Jack Cuzick; Attila T Lorincz
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  MicroRNAs as markers of progression in cervical cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Barbara Pardini; Daniela De Maria; Antonio Francavilla; Cornelia Di Gaetano; Guglielmo Ronco; Alessio Naccarati
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Prediction of spontaneous regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia lesions grades 2 and 3 by proteomic analysis.

Authors:  Kai-Erik Uleberg; Irene Tveiterås Ovestad; Ane Cecilie Munk; Cato Brede; Bianca van Diermen; Einar Gudlaugsson; Emiel A M Janssen; Anne Hjelle; Jan P A Baak
Journal:  Int J Proteomics       Date:  2014-06-15

Review 10.  Targeting immune response with therapeutic vaccines in premalignant lesions and cervical cancer: hope or reality from clinical studies.

Authors:  P Vici; L Pizzuti; L Mariani; G Zampa; D Santini; L Di Lauro; T Gamucci; C Natoli; P Marchetti; M Barba; M Maugeri-Saccà; D Sergi; F Tomao; E Vizza; S Di Filippo; F Paolini; G Curzio; G Corrado; A Michelotti; G Sanguineti; A Giordano; R De Maria; A Venuti
Journal:  Expert Rev Vaccines       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 5.217

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.