Jennifer S Smith1, Busola Sanusi2, Avril Swarts3, Mark Faesen4, Simon Levin5, Bridgette Goeieman4, Sibongile Ramotshela4, Ntombiyenkosi Rakhombe4, Anna L Williamson6, Pam Michelow7, Tanvier Omar7, Michael G Hudgens2, Cynthia Firnhaber8. 1. Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Electronic address: jennifers@unc.edu. 2. Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical HIV Research Unit, Faculty of Health Science Center, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 4. Right to Care, Johannesburg, South Africa. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rahima Moosa Mother and Child Hospital, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; Right to Care, Johannesburg, South Africa. 6. Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Institute of Infectious Disease and Division of Medical Virology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa. 7. Department of Anatomical Pathology, Cytology Unit, Faculty of Health Science, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical HIV Research Unit, Faculty of Health Science Center, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; Right to Care, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Mortality associated with cervical cancer is a public health concern for women, particularly in HIV-seropositive women in resource-limited countries. HIV-seropositive women are at a higher risk of high-grade cervical precancer, which can eventually progress to invasive carcinoma as compared to HIV-seronegative women. It is imperative to identify effective treatment methods for high-grade cervical precursors among HIV-seropositive women. OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trial data are needed comparing cryotherapy vs loop electrosurgical excision proceduretreatment efficacy in HIV-seropositive women. Our primary aim was to compare the difference in the efficacy of loop electrosurgical excision procedure vs cryotherapy for the treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade ≥2) among HIV-seropositive women by conducting a randomized clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN:HIV-seropositive women (n = 166) aged 18-65 years with histology-proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 were randomized (1:1) to cryotherapy or loop electrosurgical excision procedure treatment at a government hospital in Johannesburg. Treatment efficacy was compared using 6- and 12-month cumulative incidence posttreatment of: (1) cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2; (2) secondary endpoints of histologic cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥3 and grade ≥1; and (3) high-grade and low-grade cervical cytology. The study was registered (ClinicalTrials.govNCT01723956). RESULTS:From January 2010 through August 2014, 166 participants were randomized (86 loopelectrosurgical excision procedure; 80 cryotherapy). Cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 incidence was higher for cryotherapy (24.3%; 95% confidence interval, 16.1-35.8) than loop electrosurgical excision procedure at 6 months (10.8%; 95% confidence interval, 5.7-19.8) (P = .02), although by 12 months, the difference was not significant (27.2%; 95% confidence interval, 18.5-38.9 vs 18.5%; 95% confidence interval, 11.6-28.8, P = .21). Cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥1 incidence for cryotherapy (89.2%; 95% confidence interval, 80.9-94.9) did not differ from loop electrosurgical excision procedure (78.3%; 95% confidence interval, 68.9-86.4) at 6 months (P = .06); cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥1 incidence by 12 months was higher for cryotherapy (98.5%; 95% confidence interval, 92.7-99.8) than loop electrosurgical excision procedure (89.8%; 95% confidence interval, 82.1-95.2) (P = .02). Cumulative high-grade cytology incidence was higher for cryotherapy (41.9%) than loop electrosurgical excision procedure at 6 months (18.1%, P < .01) and 12 months (44.8% vs 19.4%, P < .001). Cumulative incidence of low-grade cytology or greater in cryotherapy (90.5%) did not differ from loop electrosurgical excision procedure at 6 months (80.7%, P = .08); by 12 months, cumulative incidence of low-grade cytology or greater was higher in cryotherapy (100%) than loop electrosurgical excision procedure (94.8%, P = .03). No serious adverse effects were recorded. CONCLUSION: Although rates of cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 were lower after loop electrosurgical excision procedure than cryotherapy treatment at 6 months, both treatments appeared effective in reducing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 by >70% by 12 months. The difference in cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 incidence between the 2 treatment methods by 12 months was not statistically significant. Relatively high cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 recurrence rates, indicating treatment failure, were observed in both treatment arms by 12 months. A different treatment protocol should be considered to optimally treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 in HIV-seropositive women.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Mortality associated with cervical cancer is a public health concern for women, particularly in HIV-seropositivewomen in resource-limited countries. HIV-seropositivewomen are at a higher risk of high-grade cervical precancer, which can eventually progress to invasive carcinoma as compared to HIV-seronegative women. It is imperative to identify effective treatment methods for high-grade cervical precursors among HIV-seropositivewomen. OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trial data are needed comparing cryotherapy vs loop electrosurgical excision procedure treatment efficacy in HIV-seropositivewomen. Our primary aim was to compare the difference in the efficacy of loop electrosurgical excision procedure vs cryotherapy for the treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade ≥2) among HIV-seropositivewomen by conducting a randomized clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN:HIV-seropositivewomen (n = 166) aged 18-65 years with histology-proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 were randomized (1:1) to cryotherapy or loop electrosurgical excision procedure treatment at a government hospital in Johannesburg. Treatment efficacy was compared using 6- and 12-month cumulative incidence posttreatment of: (1) cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2; (2) secondary endpoints of histologic cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥3 and grade ≥1; and (3) high-grade and low-grade cervical cytology. The study was registered (ClinicalTrials.govNCT01723956). RESULTS: From January 2010 through August 2014, 166 participants were randomized (86 loop electrosurgical excision procedure; 80 cryotherapy). Cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 incidence was higher for cryotherapy (24.3%; 95% confidence interval, 16.1-35.8) than loop electrosurgical excision procedure at 6 months (10.8%; 95% confidence interval, 5.7-19.8) (P = .02), although by 12 months, the difference was not significant (27.2%; 95% confidence interval, 18.5-38.9 vs 18.5%; 95% confidence interval, 11.6-28.8, P = .21). Cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥1 incidence for cryotherapy (89.2%; 95% confidence interval, 80.9-94.9) did not differ from loop electrosurgical excision procedure (78.3%; 95% confidence interval, 68.9-86.4) at 6 months (P = .06); cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥1 incidence by 12 months was higher for cryotherapy (98.5%; 95% confidence interval, 92.7-99.8) than loop electrosurgical excision procedure (89.8%; 95% confidence interval, 82.1-95.2) (P = .02). Cumulative high-grade cytology incidence was higher for cryotherapy (41.9%) than loop electrosurgical excision procedure at 6 months (18.1%, P < .01) and 12 months (44.8% vs 19.4%, P < .001). Cumulative incidence of low-grade cytology or greater in cryotherapy (90.5%) did not differ from loop electrosurgical excision procedure at 6 months (80.7%, P = .08); by 12 months, cumulative incidence of low-grade cytology or greater was higher in cryotherapy (100%) than loop electrosurgical excision procedure (94.8%, P = .03). No serious adverse effects were recorded. CONCLUSION: Although rates of cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 were lower after loop electrosurgical excision procedure than cryotherapy treatment at 6 months, both treatments appeared effective in reducing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 by >70% by 12 months. The difference in cumulative cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 incidence between the 2 treatment methods by 12 months was not statistically significant. Relatively high cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 recurrence rates, indicating treatment failure, were observed in both treatment arms by 12 months. A different treatment protocol should be considered to optimally treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥2 in HIV-seropositivewomen.
Authors: Sharon A Greene; Hugo De Vuyst; Grace C John-Stewart; Barbra A Richardson; Christine J McGrath; Kara G Marson; T Tony Trinh; Nelly Yatich; Catherine Kiptinness; Anthony Cagle; Evans Nyongesa-Malava; Samah R Sakr; Nelly R Mugo; Michael H Chung Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lilie L Lin; David S Lakomy; Elizabeth Y Chiao; Robert M Strother; Meg Wirth; Ethel Cesarman; Margaret Borok; Naftali Busakhala; Carla J Chibwesha; Lameck Chinula; Ntokozo Ndlovu; Jackson Orem; Warren Phipps; Vikash Sewram; Samantha L Vogt; Joseph A Sparano; Ronald T Mitsuyasu; Susan E Krown; Satish Gopal Journal: JCO Glob Oncol Date: 2020-07
Authors: Pietro D'Alessandro; Bruno Arduino; Maria Borgo; Gabriele Saccone; Roberta Venturella; Annalisa Di Cello; Fulvio Zullo Journal: Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther Date: 2018-09-26
Authors: David S Lakomy; Juliana Wu; Dorothy Lombe; Emmanouil Papasavvas; Susan Citonje Msadabwe; Yimin Geng; Luis J Montaner; Elizabeth Chiao; Lilie L Lin Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.452