Effective destruction of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 at 100°C using the Semm cold coagulator: 14 years experience
Abstract
Summary. A total of 1628 women with CIN 3 treated with the Semm cold coagulator between 1975 and 1989 was followed primarily by cytology. The standard suitability criteria for ablation were adhered to except that patients were treated at their first visit when the colposcopist expected that the diagnosis would be no worse than CIN 3. Overall 97% of the women were treated at their first visit. In 30 women (2%) the histology was glandular or worse than expected, but 22 of these showed no persistent cervical disease subsequently. Follow‐up was achieved for 87% at 10 years. In actuarial terms the primary success rate was 95% at 1 year and 92% at 5 years, it was similar for all age groups. Repeat coldcoagulation for persistent/recurrent CIN 3 was less successful and is not advised. The outcome for 226 pregnancies established after treatment is known. The rates for miscarriage, preterm or operative delivery were not increased. Cold‐coagulation of CIN 3 at 100°C as performed by us is as effective as any other treatment and calls into question the need for more expensive practices.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An earlier cohort study of women treated by thermal ablation between 1975 and 1989 reported outcomes of 226 pregnancies without detecting an increase in miscarriage rates compared to expected figures, but did not include a control group.
“On the contrary, an earlier cohort study of women treated by TA between 1975 and 1989 reported the outcomes of 226 pregnancies without detecting an increase in miscarriage rates compared to expected figures [28]. However, the study did not include a control group.”
From Fertility and Miscarriage Incidence After Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Treatment by Thermal Ablation: A Cohort Study (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Randall, T. C., Sauvaget, C., Muwonge, R., Trimble, E. L., & Jeronimo, J. (2019) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.10.006 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Wisniak, A., Yakam, V., Bolo, S. E., Moukam, A., Sormani, J., Vassilakos, P., Kenfack, B., & Petignat, P. (2025) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17954 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- GORDON, H. K., & DUNCAN, I. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Dundee (GB)
- Corresponding author
- GORDON, HELEN K.
- Venue
- BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1991-01
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-20
- ISSN
- 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-0328
- 1471-0528
- OpenAlex
- W2053899202
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
- Keywords
- cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, cold coagulation, treatment outcomes, repeat ablation, miscarriage, preterm birth, instrumental delivery, long-term follow-up
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Age Factors, Carcinoma in Situ, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Electrocoagulation, Female, Fertility, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Neoplasm Staging, Parity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review