Active surveillance as a management option for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2: An online experimental study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate framing of active surveillance as a management option for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2 in women of childbearing age.

METHODS

We conducted a between-subjects factorial (2 × 2) randomised experiment. Women aged 25-40 living in Australia were presented with the same hypothetical pathway of testing human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive, high-grade cytology and a diagnosis of CIN2, through an online survey. They were randomised to one of four groups to evaluate the effects of (i) framing (method of explaining resolution of abnormal cells) and (ii) inclusion of an overtreatment statement (included versus not). Primary outcome was management choice following the scenario: active surveillance or surgery.

RESULTS

1638 women were randomised. Overall, preference for active surveillance was high (78.9%; n = 1293/1638). There was no effect of framing or providing overtreatment information, or their interaction, on management choice. After adjusting for intervention received, age, education, and other model covariates, participants were more likely to choose active surveillance over surgery if they had not already had children, had plans for children in the future, had no family history of cancer, had no history of endometriosis, had adequate health literacy, and more trust in their GP. Participants were less likely to choose active surveillance over surgery if they were more predisposed to seek health care for minor problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we found no framing effect across the four conditions, we found a high level of preference for active surveillance with associations of increased preference that accord with the desire to minimise potential risks of CIN2 treatment on obstetric outcomes. These are valuable data for future clinical trials of active surveillance for management of CIN2 in younger women of childbearing age.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618002043213, 20/12/2018, prior to participant enrolment).

Comparative efficacy and complication rates after local treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and stage 1a1 cervical cancer: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis from the CIRCLE Group

INTRODUCTION

Local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and microinvasive disease remove or ablate a cone-shaped part of the uterine cervix containing the abnormal cells. A trend toward less radical techniques has raised concerns that this may adversely impact the rates of precancerous and cancerous recurrence. However, there has been no strong evidence to support such claims. We hereby describe a protocol of a systematic review and network meta-analysis that will update the evidence and compare all relevant treatments in terms of efficacy and complications.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Literature searches in electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) or trial registries will identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the efficacy and complications among different excisional and ablative techniques. The excisional techniques include cold knife, laser or Fischer cone, large loop or needle excision of the transformation zone and the ablative radical point diathermy, cryotherapy, cold coagulation or laser ablation. The primary outcome will be residual/recurrent disease defined as abnormal histology or cytology of any grade, while secondary outcomes will include treatment failure rates defined as high-grade histology or cytology, histologically confirmed CIN1+ or histologically confirmed CIN2+, human papillomavirus positivity rates, involved margins rates, bleeding and cervical stenosis rates. We will assess the risk of bias in RCTs and observational studies using tools developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Two authors will independently assess study eligibility, abstract the data and assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses will be conducted using the OR for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference for continuous outcomes. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome will be assessed using the CINeMA (Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis) tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required. We will disseminate findings to clinicians, policy-makers, patients and the public.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018115508.