4.6 Article

Justifying conservative management of CIN2 in women younger than 25 years - A population-based study

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 152, Issue 1, Pages 82-86

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.038

Keywords

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cohort study; Management; Observational study; Retrospective study; Young adult

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. In 2012, the joint clinical practice guideline from the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) changed from immediate treatment to a more conservative management of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 in young women. In this study, the outcomes before and after this management change were reviewed in Nova Scotia, Canada. Methods. A retrospective population-based cohort study was performed among women younger than 25 years with biopsy-proven CIN2, who were diagnosed in one of the colposcopy clinics in Nova Scotia between 2010 and 2014. Regression and progression rates were compared pre- and post-guideline changes. Results. Of the 636 women included in the study, 286 women were diagnosed with CIN2 before and 350 women after the management in Nova Scotia was changed. After implementation of the 2012 guidelines patients were more likely to receive conservative management (78.6% versus 44.1%; p < 0.001); which differs from the patients who underwent treatment during follow-up prior to the change in guidelines (73.4% versus 38.9%; p < 0.001). Regression occurred in 73.1% of all women, but women seen in the post-guideline change period had a higher regression rate and lower progression rate (p < 0.05). Histologic results from treatment specimen did not show a significant difference in low-grade or high-grade lesions before or after the guideline had been changed (p = 0.59). Conclusion. Conservative management seems a safe and justified approach for women younger than 25 years with CIN2. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available