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.
AIS
Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ
Cervical dysplasia
Cold knife cone biopsy
LLETZ
Loop electrosurgical excision
Journal
Gynecologic oncology
ISSN: 1095-6859
Titre abrégé: Gynecol Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0365304
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
29
08
2020
accepted:
28
09
2020
pubmed:
10
10
2020
medline:
17
4
2021
entrez:
9
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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). 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. Between August 2, 2017 and September 6, 2019, 40 patients were randomly assigned 2:1 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). 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33032824
pii: S0090-8258(20)33963-9
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.09.053
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
623-629Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest PAC and CDHW have received honoraria from Seqirus unrelated to this work. MRS has received grants from Astellas, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bionomics, Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, Celgene, Medivation, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Specialised Therapeutics and Tilray unrelated to this work. All other authors declare no competing interests.