A national colposcopy survey comparing destructive versus excisional treatment for CIN (2016)

Type of publication:
Conference abstract

Parry-Smith W., *Papoutsis D., Parris D., *Panikkar J., Redman C., *Underwood M.

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, June 2016, vol./is. 123/(99)

Introduction Women found to have high grade CIN should be offered either ablative treatment or large loop excision of the transformation zone with appropriate biopsy. Objective 1) To learn if a trial of ablative versus excisional treatment would be supported by fellow colposcopists in the UK 2) To investigate the current practice amongst colposcopists with regards to ablative treatment for high grade CIN 3) To gain an understanding of aspects of practice such as use of local anaesthetic during punch biopsies Methods An electronic questionnaire was sent to all registered colposcopists in the United Kingdom (total = 1677). Of these, 325 responded (19%). The study was granted ethical approval by the council of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (BSCCP). Results The majority of colposcopists n = 248 (76%) felt that a study investigating the morbidity and Test of Cure outcomes comparing excisional and destructive treatments was needed. A reduced complication and morbidity rate would be the greatest factor to encourage colposcopists to use destructive treatments more often n = 250 (76.92%). If a destructive treatment were found to have a significantly reduced complication, morbidity, and equal or higher patient satisfaction rate during the procedure, but resulted in a slightly higher need for further treatment 5%, this was acceptable to n = 140 (43.1%) of those surveyed. However, a further treatment rate of 2.5% was acceptable to n = 196 (60.1%). The majority n = 182 (56%) of colposcopists did not perform destructive treatments for high grade disease; For those who did not perform destructive treatments the main reason was that they were not aware of sufficient evidence for its use n = 98 (30.2%) and had no experience nor training n = 33 (10.25%). Cold coagulation was the most common destructive treatment n = 100 (31%) that colposcopists could perform, with diathermy n = 70 (22%), laser n = 11 (3.4%) and cryotherapy n = 10 (3.1%) being less prevalent. The majority of colposcopists took two punch biopsies per patient n = 190 (58.5%), with only n = 45 (13.8%) taking three or more biopsies. Silver nitrate was the most favoured haemostatic technique following punch biopsy n = 217 (66.7%), with n = 269 (87.1%) using no local analgesia. Conclusion A study investigating morbidity and Test of Cure of excisional compared with destructive treatments for high grade CIN would be supported by most participating colposcopists. Variation in practice regarding both treatment and diagnosis exists. This has quality assurance implications for a standardised national screening programme.

Link to more details or full-text: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00134415-201606002-00174&LSLINK=80&D=ovft