Thermal ablation versus cryotherapy or loop excision to treat women positive for cervical precancer on visual inspection with acetic acid test

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cryotherapy is standard practice for treating patients with cervical precancer in see-and-treat programmes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Because of logistical difficulties with cryotherapy (eg, the necessity, costs, and supply chain difficulties of refrigerant gas; equipment failure; and treatment duration >10 min), a battery-operated thermal ablator that is lightweight and portable has been developed. We aimed to compare thermal ablation using the new device with cryotherapy.

METHODS: We report the pilot phase of a randomised controlled trial in routine screen-and-treat clinics providing cervical screening using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) in Lusaka, Zambia. We recruited non-pregnant women, aged 25 years or older, who were eligible for ablative therapy. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to thermal ablation, cryotherapy, or large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ), using computer-generated allocation. The randomisation was concealed but the nurses providing treatment and the participants were unmasked. Thermal ablation was achieved using the Liger thermal ablator (using 1-5 overlapping applications of the probe heated to 100°C, each application lasting for 40 s), cryotherapy was carried out using the double-freeze technique (freeze for 3 min, thaw for 5 min, and freeze again for 3 min), and LLETZ (using a large loop driven by an electro-surgical unit to excise the transformation zone) was done under local anaesthesia. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as either human papillomavirus (HPV) type-specific clearance among participants who were positive for the same HPV type at baseline, or a negative VIA test at 6-month follow-up, if the baseline HPV test was negative. Per protocol analyses were done. Enrolment for the full trial is ongoing. Here, we present findings from a prespecified pilot phase of the full trial. The final analysis of the full trial will assess non-inferiority of the groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02956239.

FINDINGS: Between Aug 2, 2017, and Jan 15, 2019, 750 participants were randomly assigned (250 per group). 206 (84%) participants in the cryotherapy group, 197 (81%) in the thermal ablation group, and 204 (84%) in the LLETZ group attended the 6-month follow-up examination. Treatment success was reported in 120 (60%) of 200 participants in the cryotherapy group, 123 (64%) of 192 in the thermal ablation group, and 134 (67%) of 199 in the LLETZ group (p=0·31). Few participants complained of moderate to severe pain in any group immediately after the procedure (six [2%] of 250 in the cryotherapy group, four [2%] of 250 in the thermal ablation group, and five [2%] of 250 in the LLETZ group) and 2 weeks after the procedure (one [<1%] of 241 in the cryotherapy group, none of 242 in the thermal ablation group, and two [<1%] of 237 in the LLETZ group). None of the participants reported any complication requiring medical consultation or admission to hospital.

INTERPRETATION: Results from this pilot study preliminarily suggest that thermal ablation has similar treatment success to cryotherapy, without the practical disadvantages of providing cryotherapy in an LMIC. However, the study was not powered to establish the similarity between the techniques, and results from the ongoing randomised controlled trial are need to confirm these results.

FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.