ArticleCureus2025
Vulval Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A 15-Year Review of Treatment Outcomes in a UK Centre.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is a premalignant condition with a high risk of recurrence. Understanding recurrence patterns may help guide treatment planning and follow-up, particularly when comparing unifocal and multifocal disease. Methods We conducted a 15-year retrospective cohort study of patients treated for VIN at Cambridge University Hospitals, a tertiary referral center in Cambridge, England, from 2008 to 2022. Patients received local excision (clear or positive margins), CO₂ laser ablation, or medical therapy (imiquimod/cidofovir) and were stratified into unifocal or multifocal subgroups. Demographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed, with recurrence rates and time to recurrence compared across groups. Results A total of 108 patients were included: 26 treated with local excision with clear margins, 44 with excision with positive margins, 25 with laser, and 13 with medical therapy. The median age was 51 years (95% CI 50-55). In unifocal disease, time to recurrence differed significantly by treatment modality (p = 0.04), with the longest median interval in patients with clear-margin excision. In multifocal disease, recurrence risk remained high across all treatment groups without significant differences in time to recurrence (p = 0.21). Conclusions Unifocal VIN treated with excision and negative margins was associated with the lowest recurrence risk, supporting the possibility of reduced follow-up intensity in selected cases. By contrast, positive margins and multifocal disease were linked with earlier and more frequent recurrence, underscoring the importance of close, long-term surveillance. These findings may inform follow-up strategies, although further research is needed.
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.