4.6 Article

Topical 5-Fluorouracil for Women With High-Grade Vaginal Intraepithelial Neoplasia

期刊

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
卷 130, 期 6, 页码 1237-1243

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002311

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To examine success rates of 5-fluorouracil, excision, and laser ablation as the initial and secondary management strategies for women with high-grade vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case series of women referred to a single center for management of biopsy-proven, high-grade vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia between April 1994 and May 2016. Data including demographic characteristics, human papillomavirus risk factors, antecedent Pap cytology, concurrent or prior cervical and vulvar dysplasia, and treatment outcome including follow-up Pap cytology were recorded. All women were counseled on options of excision, laser ablation, or 5-fluorouracil, which was administered intravaginally according to a standardized regimen. Recurrence was defined as a biopsy showing any vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia diagnosis after primary treatment. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were treated initially with 5-fluorouracil, 35 were treated with excision, and 22 were treated with laser ablation. Demographics were similar between groups. No recurrence was noted in 35 women treated with 5-fluorouracil (74%; 95% CI 6287%), 20 treated with excision (57%; 95% CI 41-74%), and nine treated with laser ablation (41%; 95% CI 20-61%). Among 13 patients treated with 5-fluorouracil for recurrence, eight (62%) did not experience a second recurrence. Nine of 58 (16%) patients ever treated with 5-fluorouracil reported a side effect, most commonly irritation and dyspareunia. CONCLUSION: 5-fluorouracil was associated with a 74% success rate as the initial treatment modality for high-grade vaginal dysplasia. There is also a role for 5fluorouracil in the management of recurrent or persistent high-grade vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据