Comparison of acceptability & efficacy of thermal ablation (thermocoagulation) & cryotherapy in VIA positive cervical lesions: A pilot study.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY Indian Journal of Medical Research Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-25 DOI:10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_1166_22
Manju Lata Verma, Parul Sharma, Uma Singh, Rekha Sachan, Pushp Lata Sankhwar
{"title":"Comparison of acceptability & efficacy of thermal ablation (thermocoagulation) & cryotherapy in VIA positive cervical lesions: A pilot study.","authors":"Manju Lata Verma, Parul Sharma, Uma Singh, Rekha Sachan, Pushp Lata Sankhwar","doi":"10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_1166_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background objectives: </strong>The World Health Organization (WHO) has endorsed thermal ablation (thermocoagulation) as an efficient and safe modality for treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions. More evidence is being looked up by WHO through rigorous studies for health delivery models using screen-and-treat strategies incorporating thermal ablation and studies comparing it against the conventional standard modality cryotherapy. The objective of this study was to assess the acceptability of thermal ablation both among the providers and clients and compare the same with cryotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized control trial was conducted for one year from September 2019 to October 2020 after obtaining ethics approval. Computer-generated random number table was used for randomization, and eligible candidates were divided into two groups following informed consent. Women with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) positive cervical lesions in Group A received cryotherapy and Group B received thermal ablation. After the procedure, the acceptability of the provider and the client were assessed using the International Agency for Research on Cancer-validated questionnaire for both the procedures. Immediate side effects and problems at six weeks and at six months were assessed as well. Efficacy was decided by the absence of VIA positivity at six months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall VIA positivity in this study was 11.8 per cent. Thermal ablation (thermocoagulation) had better provision and client acceptability than cryotherapy (significant difference). The efficacy of thermal ablation was 97.6 per cent, while, it was 92 per cent for cryotherapy (not significant).</p><p><strong>Interpretation conclusions: </strong>In the context of screen-and-treat programme in settings such as India, thermal ablation appears to be a better method of treatment than cryotherapy for cervical pre-cancerous lesions particularly in terms of better provision and client acceptability.</p>","PeriodicalId":13349,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Medical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10793829/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_1166_22","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background objectives: The World Health Organization (WHO) has endorsed thermal ablation (thermocoagulation) as an efficient and safe modality for treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions. More evidence is being looked up by WHO through rigorous studies for health delivery models using screen-and-treat strategies incorporating thermal ablation and studies comparing it against the conventional standard modality cryotherapy. The objective of this study was to assess the acceptability of thermal ablation both among the providers and clients and compare the same with cryotherapy.

Methods: A randomized control trial was conducted for one year from September 2019 to October 2020 after obtaining ethics approval. Computer-generated random number table was used for randomization, and eligible candidates were divided into two groups following informed consent. Women with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) positive cervical lesions in Group A received cryotherapy and Group B received thermal ablation. After the procedure, the acceptability of the provider and the client were assessed using the International Agency for Research on Cancer-validated questionnaire for both the procedures. Immediate side effects and problems at six weeks and at six months were assessed as well. Efficacy was decided by the absence of VIA positivity at six months.

Results: The overall VIA positivity in this study was 11.8 per cent. Thermal ablation (thermocoagulation) had better provision and client acceptability than cryotherapy (significant difference). The efficacy of thermal ablation was 97.6 per cent, while, it was 92 per cent for cryotherapy (not significant).

Interpretation conclusions: In the context of screen-and-treat programme in settings such as India, thermal ablation appears to be a better method of treatment than cryotherapy for cervical pre-cancerous lesions particularly in terms of better provision and client acceptability.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
热消融(热凝)和冷冻治疗VIA阳性宫颈病变的可接受性和疗效比较:一项初步研究。
背景目的:世界卫生组织(WHO)认可热消融(热凝)是治疗宫颈癌前病变的一种有效和安全的方式。世卫组织正在通过对采用筛查和治疗策略的卫生服务模式进行严格研究(包括热消融),并将其与传统标准冷冻疗法进行比较,查找更多证据。本研究的目的是评估提供者和客户对热消融的可接受性,并将其与冷冻疗法进行比较。方法:获得伦理批准后,于2019年9月至2020年10月进行为期1年的随机对照试验。采用计算机生成的随机数字表进行随机化,符合条件的受试者按照知情同意分为两组。目视检查为醋酸(VIA)阳性宫颈病变的妇女A组接受冷冻治疗,B组接受热消融治疗。手术后,使用国际癌症研究机构对两种手术的验证问卷评估提供者和客户的可接受性。在第6周和第6个月也评估了即时副作用和问题。疗效取决于6个月时VIA阳性的缺失。结果:本研究中VIA总体阳性为11.8%。热消融(热凝)比冷冻治疗提供了更好的条件和患者的可接受性(显著差异)。热消融的疗效为97.6%,而冷冻治疗的疗效为92%(无统计学意义)。解释结论:在筛查和治疗方案的背景下,如印度,热消融似乎是一种更好的治疗宫颈癌前病变的方法,特别是在更好的提供和客户可接受性方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.40%
发文量
191
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR) [ISSN 0971-5916] is one of the oldest medical Journals not only in India, but probably in Asia, as it started in the year 1913. The Journal was started as a quarterly (4 issues/year) in 1913 and made bimonthly (6 issues/year) in 1958. It became monthly (12 issues/year) in the year 1964.
期刊最新文献
Dealing with the epidemic of drug use Regional variation in prevalence of frailty in India: Evidence from longitudinal ageing study in India (LASI) wave-1 Advances in TB diagnostics: A critical element for the elimination toolkit Current status of implementation of trauma registries’ in LMICs & facilitators to implementation barriers: A literature review & consultation Hospital level interventions to improve outcomes after injury in India, a LMIC
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1