4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

A contemporary analysis of epidemiology and management of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.01.047

关键词

neoplasia; vaginal dysplasia; VAIN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review a large cohort of patients with vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN) and to analyze the epidemiology and outcomes with various treatment modalities. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was performed that encompassed patients who were treated for VAIN at a single center from 1990-2007. Demographics, disease characteristics, referring cytology, and histologic information were recorded. Primary outcome was recurrence or progression to carcinoma. Statistical analyses were performed with statistical software. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-three women were included in the study: median age, 50 years (range, 21-84 years); white, 87%; current or previous smokers, 35%. At the time of diagnosis, 23% of the women had VAIN1; 37% of the women had VAIN2, and 35% of the women had VAIN3. Referral Papanicolaou smear results of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or atypical glandular cells revealed VAIN2 or VAIN3 in 89% of cases (P = .0019) vs 53% of cases with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. The median follow-up period was 18 months (range, 1-194 months). VAIN1 was observed in 70% of cases; 71% of patients who were treated for VAIN1 had recurrence or progression. VAIN2 was treated in 77% of patients; 53% of those who were treated had recurrence or progression. VAIN3 was treated in 94% of cases; 31% of them had recurrence or progression. Risk of recurrence was not correlated to VAIN type (P = .3). Six carcinomas were discovered in patients with VAIN2 and VAIN3. Median time to progression was 17 months for VAIN1, 11 months for VAIN2, and 11 months for VAIN3 (P = .036). CONCLUSION: Despite the subtype, VAIN often recurs but does so more quickly with higher grade dysplasia.

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