Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Excisional treatment comparison for in situ endocervical adenocarcinoma (EXCISE): A phase 2 pilot randomized controlled trial to compare histopathological margin status, specimen size and fragmentation after loop electrosurgical excision procedure and cold knife cone biopsy.
Cohen, Paul A; Leung, Yee; Anderson, Lyndal; van der Griend, Rachael; Chivers, Paola; Bilic, Sanela; Bittinger, Sophie; Brand, Alison; Bulsara, Max K; Codde, Jim; Eva, Lois; Farrell, Louise; Harker, Dianne; Herbst, Unine; Jeffares, Stephanie; Loh, Diane; McNally, Orla; Mohan, Ganendra Raj; Nicholson, Tarryn; Powell, Aime; Salfinger, Stuart G; Simcock, Bryony; Stewart, Colin; Silvers, Julie; Stockler, Martin R; Sykes, Peter; Stoyles, Pennie; Tan, Adeline; Tan, Ai Ling; Wrede, C David H.
Affiliation
  • Cohen PA; Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia,
  • Leung Y; Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Aus
  • Anderson L; Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Penrith South, New South Wales, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • van der Griend R; Department of Anatomical Pathology, Canterbury Health Laboratories, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  • Chivers P; Institute for Health Research, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia; Exercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia.
  • Bilic S; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Bittinger S; Oncology and Dysplasia Unit, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Brand A; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia; Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Bulsara MK; Institute for Health Research, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia.
  • Codde J; Institute for Health Research, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Eva L; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, National Women's Health, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Farrell L; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia.
  • Harker D; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Univeristy of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  • Herbst U; Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Jeffares S; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Loh D; Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia.
  • McNally O; Oncology and Dysplasia Unit, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Mohan GR; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Nicholson T; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, National Women's Health, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Powell A; Institute for Health Research, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Salfinger SG; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Simcock B; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Univeristy of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia; Christchurch Womens Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  • Stewart C; Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia; PathWest, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia.
  • Silvers J; Oncology and Dysplasia Unit, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Stockler MR; NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Sykes P; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Univeristy of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia; Christchurch Womens Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  • Stoyles P; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Tan A; Clinipath Pathology, Osborne Park, Western Australia, Australia.
  • Tan AL; Dept of Gynaecological Oncology, National Women's Health, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Wrede CDH; Oncology and Dysplasia Unit, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Australia New Zealand Gynaecological Oncology Group, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gynecol Oncol ; 159(3): 623-629, 2020 12.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33032824
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

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. We aimed to compare margins status, specimen size and fragmentation after loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) and 'cold knife cone biopsy' (CKC).

METHODS:

The EXCISE Trial was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomized 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. Co-primary endpoints were margin status, specimen size and fragmentation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS:

Between August 2, 2017 and September 6, 2019, 40 patients were randomly assigned 21 to LEEP or CKC. 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).

CONCLUSIONS:

LEEP was not associated with a greater likelihood of positive margins, specimen fragmentation or smaller excision compared to CKC when performed according to a standardized 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.
Subject(s)
Key words
Fulltext
Print
XML
PubMed Links
Search on Google

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Postoperative Complications / Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Electrosurgery / Adenocarcinoma in Situ Type of study: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Guideline Limits: Adult / Female / Humans Language: En Year: 2020 Type: Article
Fulltext
Print
XML
PubMed Links
Search on Google

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Postoperative Complications / Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Electrosurgery / Adenocarcinoma in Situ Type of study: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Guideline Limits: Adult / Female / Humans Language: En Year: 2020 Type: Article