Abstract
Background: Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the cervix is a precursor to cervical adenocarcinoma. When AIS is detected by cervical screening an excision biopsy is mandatory to exclude invasion. Two common procedures are loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and ‘cold knife cone biopsy’ (CKC), yet no randomised trials have compared these modalities. We aimed to compare margins status, specimen size and fragmentation after LEEP and CKC. Methods: The EXCISE Trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised study. Patients were enrolled at seven hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. We randomly assigned women aged ≥18 to ≤45 years with screen detected AIS to LEEP or CKC by computer generated random numbers. Co-primary endpoints were margin status, specimen size and fragmentation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Findings: Between August 2, 2017 and September 6, 2019, 40 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to LEEP or CKC. All patients were included in the analysis. Margin status was evaluable in 36 cases. The proportion of patients with involved margins did not differ between groups. 25 of 26 LEEP and all 14 CKC biopsies were excised as single specimens (p=1.00). There were no differences in specimen dimensions. Patients in the CKC group had more post-operative complications (64.3% compared to 15.4% for LEEP p=.00). There were no differences in grade three complications (p=.65). Interpretation: LEEP was not associated with a greater likelihood of positive margins, specimen fragmentation or smaller excision compared to CKC when performed according to a standardised protocol. However, the study was not powered to establish non-inferiority of LEEP and a definitive phase 3 trial to compare margin status and rates of treatment failure after LEEP and CKC is warranted. Trial Registration: The study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR registration number ACTRN12617000132347). Funding Statement: Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group [#FNR2016/03]. Declaration of Interests: PAC and CDHW have received honoraria from Seqirus unrelated to this work. All other authors declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the St John of God Healthcare Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference number #1137) and approvals were obtained at all participating sites.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
More From: SSRN Electronic Journal
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.