津巴布韦将热消融作为宫颈癌预防性治疗方法的可接受性和可行性,以及与冷冻疗法的治疗效果比较。

IF 1.2 Q4 ONCOLOGY
ecancermedicalscience Pub Date : 2024-08-12 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2024.1736
Malvern Munjoma, Stephano Gudukeya, Jabulani Mavudze, Charity Chipfumbu, Hanul Choi, Tafara Moga, Blessing Mutede, Staci Leuschner, Noah Taruberekera
{"title":"津巴布韦将热消融作为宫颈癌预防性治疗方法的可接受性和可行性,以及与冷冻疗法的治疗效果比较。","authors":"Malvern Munjoma, Stephano Gudukeya, Jabulani Mavudze, Charity Chipfumbu, Hanul Choi, Tafara Moga, Blessing Mutede, Staci Leuschner, Noah Taruberekera","doi":"10.3332/ecancer.2024.1736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and background: </strong>Thermal ablation, a technique that destroys precancerous cervical cells by extreme heat or cold, is predominantly used as a preventive cervical cancer treatment modality in high-income countries. Compared to other treatment methods thermal ablation has numerous advantages in its portability, minimal electricity use and comparable treatment rates, which is convenient for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Therefore, it is important to understand acceptability among providers and clients and the feasibility of achieving comparable treatment outcomes with other methods in LMICs.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We conducted a prospective longitudinal, open-label two-arm study from June 2021 to April 2022 at seven health delivery points. In this study, 182 clients were enrolled to receive preventive cancer treatment at baseline and followed up 6 months later to measure treatment outcomes and experiences on the procedure. Eligible consented clients were elected to a preferred method (either thermal ablation as an intervention or cryotherapy as a control group). We also conducted qualitative interviews with 14 service providers in either static or outreach settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the 6-month follow-up, the efficacy was comparable among the two groups, 96.5% (95% CI 86.7%-99.1%) clients in the intervention group had successful lesion treatment rate compared to 80.8% (95% CI 69.9%-99.1%) of the control group. Furthermore, 99% of clients in the intervention group would recommend thermal ablation to their family members or peers. Service providers preferred thermal ablation due to its ease of use, lower costs, portability and lower likelihood of adverse events compared to cryotherapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study showed the feasibility of implementing thermal ablation as a new preventive cervical cancer treatment modality in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, service providers indicated their preference for thermal ablation due to its ease of use, portability at static settings and lower likelihood of adverse events occurrence. Therefore, we recommend scaling up thermal ablation both at static and outreach sites.</p>","PeriodicalId":11460,"journal":{"name":"ecancermedicalscience","volume":"18 ","pages":"1736"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11485274/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptability and feasibility of implementing thermal ablation as a preventive cervical cancer treatment and the comparison of treatment outcome with cryotherapy in Zimbabwe.\",\"authors\":\"Malvern Munjoma, Stephano Gudukeya, Jabulani Mavudze, Charity Chipfumbu, Hanul Choi, Tafara Moga, Blessing Mutede, Staci Leuschner, Noah Taruberekera\",\"doi\":\"10.3332/ecancer.2024.1736\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction and background: </strong>Thermal ablation, a technique that destroys precancerous cervical cells by extreme heat or cold, is predominantly used as a preventive cervical cancer treatment modality in high-income countries. Compared to other treatment methods thermal ablation has numerous advantages in its portability, minimal electricity use and comparable treatment rates, which is convenient for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Therefore, it is important to understand acceptability among providers and clients and the feasibility of achieving comparable treatment outcomes with other methods in LMICs.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We conducted a prospective longitudinal, open-label two-arm study from June 2021 to April 2022 at seven health delivery points. In this study, 182 clients were enrolled to receive preventive cancer treatment at baseline and followed up 6 months later to measure treatment outcomes and experiences on the procedure. Eligible consented clients were elected to a preferred method (either thermal ablation as an intervention or cryotherapy as a control group). We also conducted qualitative interviews with 14 service providers in either static or outreach settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the 6-month follow-up, the efficacy was comparable among the two groups, 96.5% (95% CI 86.7%-99.1%) clients in the intervention group had successful lesion treatment rate compared to 80.8% (95% CI 69.9%-99.1%) of the control group. Furthermore, 99% of clients in the intervention group would recommend thermal ablation to their family members or peers. Service providers preferred thermal ablation due to its ease of use, lower costs, portability and lower likelihood of adverse events compared to cryotherapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study showed the feasibility of implementing thermal ablation as a new preventive cervical cancer treatment modality in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, service providers indicated their preference for thermal ablation due to its ease of use, portability at static settings and lower likelihood of adverse events occurrence. Therefore, we recommend scaling up thermal ablation both at static and outreach sites.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ecancermedicalscience\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"1736\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11485274/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ecancermedicalscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2024.1736\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ecancermedicalscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2024.1736","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言和背景:热消融是一种通过极热或极冷破坏宫颈癌前病变细胞的技术,在高收入国家主要用作宫颈癌的预防性治疗方式。与其他治疗方法相比,热消融技术具有携带方便、用电量极低、治疗率可比等诸多优点,便于在中低收入国家使用。因此,了解医疗服务提供者和患者的接受程度以及在中低收入国家实现与其他方法相当的治疗效果的可行性非常重要:我们于 2021 年 6 月至 2022 年 4 月在七个医疗服务点开展了一项前瞻性纵向开放标签双臂研究。在这项研究中,有 182 名患者在基线时登记接受癌症预防治疗,并在 6 个月后进行随访,以衡量治疗效果和对治疗过程的体验。符合条件并同意接受治疗的患者被选中一种首选方法(热消融作为干预组或冷冻疗法作为对照组)。我们还对 14 名服务提供者进行了定性访谈:在 6 个月的随访中,两组的疗效相当,干预组病灶治疗成功率为 96.5%(95% CI 86.7%-99.1%),而对照组为 80.8%(95% CI 69.9%-99.1%)。此外,99% 的干预组患者会向家人或同伴推荐热消融术。与冷冻疗法相比,热消融术操作简便、成本较低、便于携带且发生不良事件的可能性较低,因此服务提供者更倾向于使用热消融术:这项研究表明,在津巴布韦实施热消融作为一种新的宫颈癌预防性治疗方法是可行的。此外,服务提供者表示他们更倾向于使用热消融术,因为它易于使用、可在静态环境中携带以及发生不良事件的可能性较低。因此,我们建议在固定地点和外展地点推广热消融术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Acceptability and feasibility of implementing thermal ablation as a preventive cervical cancer treatment and the comparison of treatment outcome with cryotherapy in Zimbabwe.

Introduction and background: Thermal ablation, a technique that destroys precancerous cervical cells by extreme heat or cold, is predominantly used as a preventive cervical cancer treatment modality in high-income countries. Compared to other treatment methods thermal ablation has numerous advantages in its portability, minimal electricity use and comparable treatment rates, which is convenient for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Therefore, it is important to understand acceptability among providers and clients and the feasibility of achieving comparable treatment outcomes with other methods in LMICs.

Methodology: We conducted a prospective longitudinal, open-label two-arm study from June 2021 to April 2022 at seven health delivery points. In this study, 182 clients were enrolled to receive preventive cancer treatment at baseline and followed up 6 months later to measure treatment outcomes and experiences on the procedure. Eligible consented clients were elected to a preferred method (either thermal ablation as an intervention or cryotherapy as a control group). We also conducted qualitative interviews with 14 service providers in either static or outreach settings.

Results: At the 6-month follow-up, the efficacy was comparable among the two groups, 96.5% (95% CI 86.7%-99.1%) clients in the intervention group had successful lesion treatment rate compared to 80.8% (95% CI 69.9%-99.1%) of the control group. Furthermore, 99% of clients in the intervention group would recommend thermal ablation to their family members or peers. Service providers preferred thermal ablation due to its ease of use, lower costs, portability and lower likelihood of adverse events compared to cryotherapy.

Conclusion: The study showed the feasibility of implementing thermal ablation as a new preventive cervical cancer treatment modality in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, service providers indicated their preference for thermal ablation due to its ease of use, portability at static settings and lower likelihood of adverse events occurrence. Therefore, we recommend scaling up thermal ablation both at static and outreach sites.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.60%
发文量
138
审稿时长
27 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信