Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2/2009

01-02-2009 | Original Article

Primary care sector versus treatment centre follow up for post-treatment cervical squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (SIL)

Authors: Piya Ray, Kavitha Madhuri Thumuluru, Veena Kaul

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 2/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The NHSCSP 2004 guideline recommends that the best practice for the follow up of post-treatment squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (SIL) is by cytological surveillance in the treatment centre or alternatively, in the primary care sector as a minimum standard. We undertook this study to test this recommendation.

Setting

In a colposcopy clinic of a district general hospital of UK.

Population

Retrospective analysis of 418 patients treated for squamous intraepithelial neoplasia whose post treatment cytological surveillance was followed up for 18 months after treatment. A prospective patient preference questionnaire was also undertaken in 50 randomly chosen patients having treatment to elicit their preferences for the place of follow up.

Results

At 8 months 66.4% had their first smear in the primary care sector as compared to 88.6% in the treatment centre. The post-treatment follow up smear performance graph seems to be different for the primary care sector compared to treatment centre. In 12 months nearly 90% of the patients had at least one smear and by 18 months 96.9% of the treated patients had a follow up smear in the community which would detect residual disease. There was no statistically significant difference in the detection of residual disease in the community compared to the treatment centre during the follow up period. A total of 76% of patients preferred to have their follow up smears in the primary care.

Conclusion

Targets set by the NHSCSP of UK were not met either by the primary care sector or the treatment centre in the 8 months but was satisfactorily achieved by both in 12 months.

Recommendation

These preliminary results indicate a need for a larger multi centre randomised trial to establish if the primary sector is truly a satisfactory alternative for patient follow up. Cytological surveillance is best carried out in the place desired by the patients to allow good compliance with the monitoring process.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Soutter WP, Lopes A, Fletcher A et al (1997) Invasive cancer after conservative therapy for CIN. Lancet 349:978–980PubMedCrossRef Soutter WP, Lopes A, Fletcher A et al (1997) Invasive cancer after conservative therapy for CIN. Lancet 349:978–980PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Giles J et al (1989) Medical audit in the followup of patients treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Obstet Gynecol 10:78–79 Giles J et al (1989) Medical audit in the followup of patients treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Obstet Gynecol 10:78–79
3.
go back to reference Mcindoe WA et al (1984) The invasive potential of carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 64:451–458 Mcindoe WA et al (1984) The invasive potential of carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 64:451–458
4.
go back to reference Grunsell H, Alm P, Larsson G (1983) Cure rates after laser conisation for early cervical neoplasia. Ann Chir Gynaecol 72:218–222 Grunsell H, Alm P, Larsson G (1983) Cure rates after laser conisation for early cervical neoplasia. Ann Chir Gynaecol 72:218–222
5.
go back to reference Anderson ES, Nielson K, Larsen G (1990) Laser conisation:followup in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the cone margin. Gynecol Oncol 39:328–331CrossRef Anderson ES, Nielson K, Larsen G (1990) Laser conisation:followup in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the cone margin. Gynecol Oncol 39:328–331CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Biggrig A, Haffenden DK, Sheehan AL, Codling BW, Read MD (1994) Efficacy and safety of large loop excision of the transformation zone. Lancet 343:32–34CrossRef Biggrig A, Haffenden DK, Sheehan AL, Codling BW, Read MD (1994) Efficacy and safety of large loop excision of the transformation zone. Lancet 343:32–34CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Soutter WP, Butler JS, Tipples M (2006) The role of colposcopy in the followup of women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG May 113(5):511–514CrossRef Soutter WP, Butler JS, Tipples M (2006) The role of colposcopy in the followup of women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG May 113(5):511–514CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Paraskevaidis E, Jandial L, Mann EM, Fisher PM, Kitchener HC (1991) Pattern of treatment failure following laser for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: implications for follow-up protocol. Obstet Gynecol 78(1):80–83PubMed Paraskevaidis E, Jandial L, Mann EM, Fisher PM, Kitchener HC (1991) Pattern of treatment failure following laser for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: implications for follow-up protocol. Obstet Gynecol 78(1):80–83PubMed
Metadata
Title
Primary care sector versus treatment centre follow up for post-treatment cervical squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (SIL)
Authors
Piya Ray
Kavitha Madhuri Thumuluru
Veena Kaul
Publication date
01-02-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0674-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2009

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2/2009 Go to the issue