Trial reportAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2022
Comparison between Single Versus Twice Application of Topical 85% Trichloroacetic Acid in the Treatment of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia; A Randomized Clinical Trial on Efficacy and Tolerability.
Trial report in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of up to two-time administration of 85% TCA, as a promising alternative therapy to conservative and surgical management of grade one to three CINs.
methodsIn this two-armed randomized clinical trial, a total of 53 patients with biopsy-proven CIN lesions were allocated to two groups of TCA treatment. The first group (n=26) received a single dose of local therapy with 85% TCA while the second group (n=27) was treated on two separate occasions with a two-week interval. Two participants (one in each group) were lost to follow-up. At the two-month follow-up after TCA application, a colposcopy-guided biopsy was performed for all patients and the pathological specimens were studied by a single experienced pathologist to determine the post-intervention grading of CIN.
resultsTwo groups were comparable in terms of age and base-line lesion grading, as CIN 1 lesions comprised the majority of cases (54%), followed by CIN 2(37%). While our sample was a poor representative of CIN3 lesions (7%), no significant difference was noticed between the single and twice TCA treated groups with a response rate of 52% and 54% respectively (either complete remission to normal histology or regression to any low-grade lesion). Either separate analysis (with respect to the base-line grading within each treatment group) or combined analysis (regardless of CIN sub-group) could not generate any statistical significance. The second dose of TCA did not increase the frequency of reported adverse events.
conclusionThe second dose of topical 85% TCA does not seem to increase the CIN response rate more so than its single dose. However, further controlled clinical trials with larger samples are warranted to verify current findings. The use of TCA was not limited by any major side effect, therefore, the potential to achieve an increased efficacy with more frequent TCA applications is appealing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.