A retrospective study of focused ultrasound versus cryotherapy in treatment of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions

Abstract

Purpose To compare the efficacy and safety of focused ultrasound (FUS) therapy and cryotherapy for cervical squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL).Methods In this retrospective study, data pertaining to women treated for cervical SIL with FUS therapy or cryotherapy at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University between 21 April 2018 and 31 August 2020 were obtained. The patients were followed up after 3–6 and 6–12 months. The proportions of women with no evidence of disease, recurrent disease, clearance of the human papillomavirus (HPV) and adverse effects or complications were determined.Results Of the 250 women with complete data who were included in the study, 144 and 106 received FUS therapy and cryotherapy, respectively. Overall, FUS therapy was observed to be more effective than cryotherapy (91.7 vs. 79.2%, p = 0.005). Statistically significant differences were noted in the treatment efficacy for patients with low-grade SIL (LSIL) (92.3 vs. 80.2%, p = 0.011). However, there were no significant differences in the treatment efficacy for patients with high-grade SIL (HSIL) (88.9 vs. 75.0%, p = 0.390). The recurrence rates in patients with LSIL treated with FUS therapy or cryotherapy showed no significant differences at the 6–12-month follow-up (1.0 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.163). Furthermore, there was no recurrence in patients with HSIL, either in the FUS or cryotherapy group. FUS therapy and cryotherapy resulted in similar HPV clearance at the 3–6-month follow-up (77.1 vs. 64.8%, p = 0.057). No statistically significant differences were observed in the complication rates between the two groups (3.5 vs. 1.9%, p = 0.717).Conclusion The results of this study suggest that FUS therapy is superior to cryotherapy in the treatment of cervical LSIL.

Keywords

• Focused ultrasound
• cryotherapy
• cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions
• HPV
• cervical cancer