UK national survey of the management of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia.
Vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VaIN) is less common than intraepithelial neoplasia at other non-cervical sites and can be challenging to manage. This survey describes current clinical practice by colposcopists in the UK. An online questionnaire was emailed to all the lead colposcopists in U.K. A total of 86 (43%) responses were obtained. The median number of cases of VaIN seen in a year was five (range 0-100. Most clinics (95%) managed low grade VaIN conservatively. Local vaginal mucosal excision was the most common surgical procedure. Half of respondents adopted observation, although 64% of the units referred cases to a cancer centre. More than half used a combination of cytology and colposcopy for follow-up; only two reported using Human papilloma virus testing. Seventy-seven of eighty-six lead colposcopists did not have a local guideline and would support national guidance. Treatment differed across the UK with no agreed management guidelines. Impact statement What is already known on the subject? Vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VaIN) is a pre-cancerous condition of lower genital tract and usually co-exists with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) rather than in isolation. Unlike CIN, VaIN can be extremely challenging to manage in view of its anatomical proximity to bladder and bowel and also difficulty in accessing fornices. If diagnosed during the definitive management of CIN at the time of hysterectomy and confined to the upper vagina, it could be surgically treated at the same time. VaIN can be more challenging post-hysterectomy, especially following a failed medical and conservation option. Various treatment options are adopted for management of VaIN with no standardisation of care. What do the results of this study add? A national survey was conducted to assess the management of VaIN amongst lead colposcopists. The national survey has added valuable results, despite a response rate of only 43%. The survey confirmed conservative approach to low grade VaIN but differing treatment for high grade VaIN. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? This clearly calls for the implementation of a national guideline in the UK to standardise management of VaIN, though it may be quite challenging. The survey could help inform implementation of HrHPV testing in recurrent or persistent VaIN.