Browsing by Author "Prendiville W"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The use of thermal ablation in diverse cervical cancer "screen-and-treat" service platforms in Zambia.
    (2022-Apr) Mwanahamuntu M; Kapambwe S; Pinder LF; Matambo J; Chirwa S; Chisele S; Basu P; Prendiville W; Sankaranarayanan R; Parham GP; Zambia Ministry of Health, Cancer Control, Lusaka, Zambia.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.; International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO Screening Group, Early Detection and Prevention Section, Lyon, France.; Center for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Cervical Cancer Prevention Program, Lusaka, Zambia.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Newborn Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia.; CIDRZ; Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ)
    OBJECTIVE: Thermal ablation (TA) was implemented in public sector cervical cancer prevention services in Zambia in 2012. Initially introduced as a treatment modality in primary healthcare clinics, it was later included in mobile outreach campaigns and clinical research trials. We report the feasibility, acceptability, safety, and provider uptake of TA in diverse clinical contexts. METHODS: Screening services based on visual inspection with acetic acid were offered by trained nurses to non-pregnant women aged 25-59 years. Women with a type 1 transformation zone (TZ) were treated with same-visit TA. Those with a type 2 or 3 TZ, or suspicious for cancer, were managed with same-visit electrosurgical excision or punch biopsy, respectively. A provider survey was conducted. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2020, 2123 women were treated with TA: primary healthcare clinics, n = 746; mobile outreach clinics, n = 1127; research clinics, n = 250. Of the 996 women treated in primary healthcare and research clinics, 359 (48%) were HIV positive. Mild cramping during treatment was the most common adverse effect. No treatment interruptions occurred. No major complications were reported in the early (6 weeks) follow-up period. Providers expressed an overwhelming preference for TA over cryotherapy. CONCLUSION: TA was feasible, safe, and acceptable in diverse clinical contexts. It was the preferred ablation method of providers when compared with cryotherapy.