Surgical interventions for high grade vulval intraepithelial neoplasia.
BACKGROUND
Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a pre-malignant condition of the vulval skin. This uncommon chronic skin condition of the vulva is associated with a high risk of recurrence and the potential to progress to vulval cancer. The condition is complicated by its' multicentric and multifocal nature. The incidence of this condition appears to be rising particularly in the younger age group.There is a lack of consensus on the optimal surgical treatment method. However, the rationale for surgical treatment of VIN has been to treat symptoms and exclude underlying malignancy with the continued aim of preservation of vulval anatomy and function. Repeated treatments affect local cosmesis and cause psychosexual morbidity thus impacting on the patients' quality of life.


OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for high grade VIN.


METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 3, 2010, Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.


METHODS
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical interventions, in adult women diagnosed with high grade vulval intraepithelial neoplasia.


METHODS
Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias.


RESULTS
We found only one RCT which included 30 women that met our inclusion criteria and this trial reported data on carbon dioxide laser (CO(2) laser) versus ultrasonic surgical aspiration (USA).There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of disease recurrence after one year follow-up, pain, presence of scarring, dysuria or burning, adhesions, infection, abnormal discharge and eschar between women who received CO(2) laser and those who received USA. The trial lacked statistical power due to the small number of women in each group and the low number of observed events, but was at low risk of bias.


CONCLUSIONS
The included trial lacked statistical power due to the small number of women in each group and the low number of observed events. Therefore in the absence of reliable evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of the two surgical techniques for the management of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia precludes any definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice.
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital, St Peter's Road, Margate, Kent, UK, CT9 4AN.
Sonali
S
Kaushik
Litha
L
Pepas
Andy
A
Nordin
Andrew
A
Bryant
Heather O
HO
Dickinson
D000328:Adult; D002278:Carcinoma in Situ / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D054020:Lasers, Gas / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D011230:Precancerous Conditions / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D013396:Suction / Q000379:methods; D014464:Ultrasonic Therapy / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D014846:Vulvar Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2009 Nov;28(6):559-62
19851204
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2001;22(6):393-402
11874067
Int J Cancer. 2000 Mar 1;85(5):649-53
10699944
J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;50(6):683-91
9250266
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1994 Jan;4(1):22-28
11578381
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Apr;102(4):311-6
7612515
Stat Med. 1998 Dec 30;17(24):2815-34
9921604
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Dec;106(6):1319-26
16319258
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
12958120
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Nov;29(8):749-53
19821671
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
3802833
J Reprod Med. 2000 Aug;45(8):613-5
10986677
Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Feb;69(2):247-50
3543768
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 May;19(4):741-4
19509581
Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Feb;100(2):271-5
16169064
J R Coll Surg Edinb. 2000 Apr;45(2):81-4
10822916
Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Oct;62(4):457-62
6888823
J Reprod Med. 2002 Sep;47(9):701-5
12380448
Hum Reprod. 2008 Apr;23(4):832-9
18245509
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Sep;106(3):579-84
17582474
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Dec;99(3):652-5
16169066
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Apr;109(4):942-7
17400858
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Mar;137(1):97-102
17382455
Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Nov;84(5):741-5
7936504
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2006 Jan;25(1):22-9
16306780
BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490
15205295
Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Nov;107(2):219-22
17655918
Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Sep;90(3):448-52
9277660
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 May;97(2):645-51
15863172
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Oct;99(1):23-7
17462650
J Reprod Med. 2007 Jan;52(1):23-7
17286063