Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Andrew Bryant
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
BackgroundUsual-type vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (uVIN) is a pre-cancerous condition of the vulval skin. Also known as high-grade VIN, VIN 2/3 or high-grade vulval squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), uVIN is associated with high-risk subtype human papilloma virus (HPV) infection. The condition causes distressing vulval symptoms in the majority of affected women and may progress to vulval cancer, therefore is usually actively managed. There is no consensus on the optimal management of uVIN. High morbidity and recurrence rates associated with surgical treatments make less invasive treatments highly desirable.ObjectivesTo determine which interventions are the most effective, safe and tolerable for treating women with uVIN.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 8 2015, MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to 1 September 2015). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed medical and surgical interventions in women with uVIN. If no RCTs were available, we included non-randomised studies (NRSs) with concurrent comparison groups that controlled for baseline case mbc in multivariate analysis.Data collection and analysisWe used Cochrane methodology with two review authors independently extracting data and assessing risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised data in meta-analyses using random-effects methods. Network meta-analysis was not possible due to insufficient data.Main resultsWe included six RCTs involving 327 women and five NRSs involving 648 women. The condition was variously named by investigators as uVIN, VIN2/3 or high-grade VIN. Five RCTs evaluated medical treatments (imiquimod, cidofovir, indole-3 carbinol), and six studies (one RCT and five NRSs) evaluated surgical treatments or photodynamic therapy. We judged two RCTs and four NRSs to be at a high or unclear risk of bias; we considered the others at relatively low risk of bias. Types of outcome measures reported in NRSs varied and we were unable to pool NRS data.Medical interventions: Topical imiquimod was more effective than placebo in achieving a response (complete or partial) to treatment at five to six months post-randomisation (three RCTs, 104 women; risk ratio (RR) 11.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.21 to 44.51; hi gh-qualio evidence). At five to six months, a complete response occurred in 36/62 (58%) and 0/42 (0%) women in the imiquimod and placebo groups, respectively (RR 14.40, 95% CI 2.97 to 69.80). Moderate-quality evidence suggested that the complete response was sustained at one year (one RCT, nine complete responses out of 52 women (38%)) and beyond, particularly in women with smaller VIN lesions. Histologically confirmed complete response rates with imiquimod versus cidofovir at six months were 45% (41/91) and 46% (41/89), respectively (one RCT, 180 women; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.37; moderate-qualio evidence). Twelve-month data from this trial are awaited; however, interim findings suggested that complete responses were sustained at 12 months. Only one trial reported vulval cancer at one year (1/24 and 2/23 in imiquimod and placebo groups, respectively). Adverse events were more common with imiquimod than placebo and dose reductions occurred more frequently in the imiquimod group than in the placebo group (two RCTs, 83 women; RR 7.77, 95% CI 1.61 to 37.36; hi gh-qualio evidence). Headache, fatigue and discontinuation were slightly more common with imiquimod than cidofovir (moderate-qualio evidence). Quality of life scores reported in one trial (52 women) were not significantly different for imiquimod and placebo. The evidence of effectiveness of topical treatments in immunosuppressed women was scant. There was insufficient evidence on other medical interventions.Surgical and
Author(s): Lawrie TA, Nordin A, Chakrabarti M, Bryant A, Kaushik S, Pepas L
Publication type: Review
Publication status: Published
Journal: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year: 2016
Online publication date: 05/01/2016
Acceptance date: 01/01/1900
ISSN (electronic): 1469-493X
Publisher: WILEY-BLACKWELL
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011837.pub2
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011837.pub2
