It is estimated that more than 311 000 women die of cervical cancer each year. Of these deaths, 91% occur in low-and middle-income countries. Demographic changes and a lack of action mean that the number of deaths per year is projected to reach 460 000 by 2040.
Screening programmes have dramatically reduced cervical cancer rates in high-income countries. Screening using a cytology-based method and histological confirmation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is typically followed by treatment such as cryotherapy, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ), and cold knife conization (CKC). However, in low-and middle-income countries, it has not been possible to obtain high population coverage with cytology-based screening, and other tests are being used to screen, including visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and more recently, DNA/RNA tests for human papillomavirus (HPV). Screen-and-treat algorithms, where women who are positive for a screening test are treated with ablative treatment (destruction of the cervical transformation zone including the lesion), have been implemented.
Cryotherapy is a World Health Organization (WHO) recommended ablative treatment, but one major disadvantage is the need for a refrigerant gas (N 2 O or CO 2. The gas containers are bulky and heavy to transport and some areas of low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) may have supply issues. In addition, frequent refilling of freezing gas can be costly. Thermal ablation, also called "cold coagulation" or thermocoagulation, is another ablative treatment for CIN. The equipment is simple, lightweight (devices can weigh much less than 2 kg), and is easily portable to LMIC field clinics. Treatment is based on a 20-40 second application (multiple if needed) of a reusable metallic probe that is electrically heated to approximately 100 C, leading to epithelial and stromal destruction. Like cryotherapy, thermal ablation is provided by a variety of health care personnel, including primary health care workers, and typically performed without anesthesia.

# RATIONAL FOR THE GUIDELINES
Thermal ablation is not included in the latest version of the WHO guidelines for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2-3 and adenocarcinoma in situ, nor in the WHO Comprehensive cervical cancer control: a guide to essential practice (C4GEP) manual, but evidence is accumulating to support its inclusion, and there were requests from countries and WHO partners to issue recommendations on the use of thermal ablation for the treatment of cervical precancer lesions.
The objectives of these guidelines are - to provide evidence-based guidance on the use of thermal ablation to treat cervical precancer; and - to support countries to update their national guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical precancer.
These guidelines were developed using the WHO Handbook for guideline development. A Guideline Development Group (GDG) was established that included experts, clinicians and researchers in cervical cancer prevention and treatment, health programme directors, and methodologists. Conflicts of interests were managed according to WHO rules. An independent systematic review team and methodologist synthesized the evidence and produced evidence summaries following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. GRADE evidence profiles and evidence-to-decision frameworks were created and used by the Guideline Development Group to make recommendations. This guideline was peer reviewed by an external group and approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee.
These guidelines provide recommendations for the use of thermal ablation for the treatment of precancerous cervical lesions. These recommendations are applicable for women who have histologically confirmed CIN2-3 or for women who have been screened positive in a screen-and-treat strategy. These recommendations expand on the treatment for screenand-treat strategies as provided in the WHO guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention.
In these recommendations, the GDG decided to use the term thermal ablation instead of cold coagulation or thermocoagulation, to reflect the fact that it is an ablative treatment. The GDG decided that in these guidelines, as well as in future WHO publications, the term LLETZ will be used to represent a therapeutic intervention to excise the transformation zone (TZ). LLETZ is the original terminology used for excision of the TZ. The C4GEP manual, as well as some countries, use the term LEEP (Loop Electro Excision Procedure) and the two terms (LLETZ and LEEP) are often used interchangeably. The term LEEP also refers to a diagnostic procedure, requiring up to 2 cm of tissue to be excised from the cervix for the pathologist to make an accurate diagnosis.

# ELIGIBILITY FOR THERMAL ABLATION AND CRYOTHERAPY
Eligibility for treatment should be assessed by colposcopy (if available) or by naked eye examination of cervix after applying 3-5% acetic acid for 1 minute.
Clinicians usually describe what they see when performing visual inspection (for example, if the TZ is fully visible; if the whole lesion is visible; if the lesion extends into the endocervix), and then consider if the probe can reach the whole lesion. Clinicians can consider using the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy's classification of three types of Transformation Zone, characterised by the size and site:
- A type 1 TZ is completely ectocervical and is therefore fully visible. - A type 2 TZ is partially endocervical but is still fully visible. It may be shallow and within range of an ablative probe or may extend beyond reach of an ablative probe. - A type 3 TZ extends out of view up the endocervical canal, i.e., the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ), and is not fully visible.
Following assessment as described above, women who screen positive, but there is no suspicion of invasive or glandular disease, (i.e. adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma in situ), are eligible for ablative therapy if:
- the TZ is fully visible, the whole lesion is visible and it does not extend into the endocervix, or - the lesion is type 1 TZ; or - the lesion is type 2 TZ where the probe tip will achieve complete ablation of the SCJ epithelium, i.e., where it can reach the upper limit of the TZ. Sometimes the SCJ can be seen high in the canal but a probe tip would not reach it.
Women who screen positive are not eligible for ablative therapy if there is any suspicion of invasive or glandular disease, (i.e. adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma in situ), and:
- the TZ is not fully visible because it is endocervical (Type 3 TZ); or - it is a Type 2 TZ where the SCJ is out of reach of the probe tip.

# INTERVALS FOR FOLLOW-UP
Intervals for follow-up should be conducted according to the WHO guidelines for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2-3 and adenocarcinoma in situ 1 and the WHO guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention 2. According to those recommendations, all women who have received treatment should receive post-treatment follow-up at 1 year to ensure effectiveness of treatment. Post treatment follow-up is critical, in particular for women living with HIV or women of unknown HIV status in areas with high endemic HIV infection.

# Executive summary
1  ?ua=1 2  ?ua=1
- the TZ is fully visible, the whole lesion is visible and it does not extend into the endocervix, or - the lesion is type 1 TZ, or - the lesion is type 2 TZ where the probe tip will achieve complete ablation of the SCI epithelium, i.e., where it can reach the upper limit of the TZ. Sometimes the SCJ can be seen high in the canal but a probe tip would not reach it.

# Women who screen positive are not eligible for ablative therapy if there is any suspicion of invasive or glandular disease, (i.e. adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma in situ), and
- the TZ is not fully visible because is endocervical (Type 3TZ), or - is a Type 2 TZ where the SCJ is out of reach the probe tip.

# Figure 1a: Flowchart for histologically confirmed CIN2+
It is estimated that more than 311 000 women die of cervical cancer each year, and that 91% of these deaths occur in low-and middle-income parts of the world (1). Demographic changes, ageing and lack of action mean that the number of deaths per year is projected to reach 460 000 by 2040 (2). The highest burden is found in sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South America, East Africa, South and South-East Asia, and the Western Pacific. 3 Screening programmes have dramatically reduced cervical cancer rates in high-income countries. In the United States of America (USA), for example, mortality has been reduced by 80% in 50 years thanks to screening by the Papanicolaou (PAP) smear test and treatment of confirmed precancerous cervical intraepithelial lesions grade 2 or more (CIN2+ (2). Screening using the same cytology-based method and histological confirmation of lesions has not been so successful in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC), mainly because of high costs and logistical considerations specific to the PAP smear test, general lack of colposcopy and histology services, and inadequate access to treatment of precancerous lesions in these regions (3).
Alternative tests have been introduced -first the visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), and more recently, a nucleic acid test for human papillomavirus (HPV). Due to the lack of services for diagnostic confirmation, the first edition of the WHO Comprehensive cervical cancer control: a guide to essential practice (C4GEP) in 2006 recommends the implementation of screenand-treat algorithms where women who are positive for a screening test are treated with ablative treatment (destruction of the cervical transformation zone, including the lesion). More recently, WHO has endorsed the use of cryotherapy through an evidence-based review in 2011 and in 2014 (4,5), and in the WHO guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention and the updated C4-GEP review of 2014 (6,7). Cryotherapy was found to have similar efficacy compared to excision of the CIN2+ lesion by large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ). WHO also published a technical specifications document for cryosurgical equipment (8).
One major disadvantage of cryotherapy is the need for a refrigerant gas (N 2 O or CO 2. The gas containers are bulky and heavy transport and the gas is not always easily available in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) (9). In addition, cryotherapy can be costly: the purchase of can be expensive, alongside the purchase or rental of the tank. It has been reported that this can lead to delay and even lack of treatment after a positive screening test, which undermines prevention through a screen-and-treat approach. Novel ablative treatment methods have been developed since the last update of the C4GEP (9), for which member countries and key stakeholders have approached WHO for guidance on their use. To overcome the need for cryo-gas, companies have developed portable devices that use electricity to cool the treatment probe to freezing point. This technology is used in some new devices like the CryoPenTM (by Cryopen Inc.). The system consists of a hand-held copper tip that is inserted into a refrigeration unit, and reusable tips. The entire system weighs about 10 kg. There is also a device (Cryopop) that uses gas more efficiently by converting the gas into a solid in order to freeze tissue. It will be established whether these devices comply with the WHO technical specifications for cryotherapy equipment (8).
Thermal ablation is another novel ablative treatment for CIN, and is sometimes called "cold coagulation" or "thermocoagulation". WHO and the Guideline Development group decided to use the term thermal ablation, as it describes most closely what the treatment is. The equipment is fairly simple and treatment is based on a 20-30 second application of a reusable metallic probe that is electrically heated to approximately 100 C, leading to epithelial and stromal destruction of the lesion. Conventional desktop devices weigh about 5 kg and are reasonably portable. Newer handheld, battery-operated devices weigh less than 2 kg, and are compact enough to carry in a backpack which makes for easy implementation in LMIC. The treatment time is shorter with thermal ablation. As in the case of cryotherapy, Globocan 2019 thermal ablation is provided by a variety of qualified health care personnel, including primary health care workers, and no anesthesia is required.

# RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Thermal ablation is currently not included in the latest version of the WHO guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer, or WHO guidelines for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2-3 and adenocarcinoma in situ (5,6). Although the technique was used quite frequently in the UK in the 1980s and early 1990s, there were few reports on its use. Hence WHO concluded at that time that there were insufficient efficacy and safety data to develop recommendations on its use at the time of the last revision of the C4GEP. However, evidence is now accumulating and has been synthesized in a meta-analysis that has now been updated (10).
The objectives of these guidelines are - to provide evidence-based guidance on the use of thermal ablation for cervical precancer; and, - to support countries in updating their national guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical precancer.

# TARGET AUDIENCE
This document is intended primarily for policy-makers, managers, programme officers, and other professionals in the health sector who have responsibility for choosing strategies for cervical cancer prevention and control, at country, regional, and district levels. Individuals working in reproductive health care programmes, particularly programmes for prevention of sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AIDS and for family planning, at the district and primary health care levels, should also consult this document to understand how recommendations are developed and why it is vitally important to select and implement evidence-based strategies to prevent cervical cancer. Technical terms used in the document are defined in the Glossary.
These guidelines were developed following the methods outlined in the 2014 edition of the WHO handbook for guideline development (11).

# GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT GROUP (GDG)
The GDG was established with 35 members who brought varied expertise in technical and societal aspects of screening and treatment of precancerous lesions (Annex A). Members were from the African Region, Region of the Americas, South-East Asia Region, European Region, and the Western Pacific Region. The GDG participated in in-person meetings and teleconferences to identify and prioritize questions to be addressed in this guideline, to discuss the evidence reviews, and to make recommendations. The GDG reviewed and approved the final version of this guideline.

# QUESTIONS AND OUTCOMES
In April 2017, the GDG discussed the approach to develop the questions for this review based on the population, intervention, comparison and outcome framework (PICO). It was proposed to follow a similar set of recommendation questions from the 2011 cryotherapy guidelines (4). The GDG agreed that recommendations should be made about the use of thermal ablation for the treatment of precancerous cervical lesions and about its use in screen-and-treat strategies.
The group also agreed that evidence would be needed to inform the specific application of thermal ablation in practice, for example, in key populations, by specific health care professionals, and with specific modalities of use. PICO questions specific to thermal ablation were then prepared by the WHO secretariat in collaboration with the systematic review team and shared with the GDG. A final list of PICO questions was agreed upon during a teleconference with the GDG in September 2017 (Annex B).
The outcomes previously identified for the guidelines for treatment of precancerous lesions and screen-and-treat strategies to prevent cervical cancer (5, 6) were used as a basis for discussion by the GDG. The thermal ablation GDG reviewed and agreed upon the outcomes to use in this guideline via email and a teleconference call. The outcomes are included in the PICO questions in Annex B.

# REVIEWS OF THE EVIDENCE
We used a hierarchical approach to search for evidence to make recommendations. We searched for systematic reviews, then primary studies when no systematic reviews were available. We used the evidence from a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis for the benefits and harms of thermal ablation that included studies in which at least one group of women received thermal ablation (10).
Randall and colleagues (10) conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases up to December 2017 and reviewed references of included studies. We also searched for information about patient values and preferences, resources, acceptability, equity and feasibility related to thermal ablation from 1997 up to January 2018. We updated the search for the systematic reviews conducted for the WHO guidelines for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2-3 and adenocarcinoma in situ for cryotherapy for studies greater than 300 people since it was unlikely that studies of fewer than 300 people would change the previously calculated pooled proportions (12). The search was conducted from 2012 to January 2018, but no new studies meeting the eligibility criteria were identified. We obtained preliminary data from the GDG for four ongoing or completed, but not yet published, studies in India, Peru and El Salvador, Zambia, South Africa. We also used the test accuracy data from the systematic review and meta-analysis for the WHO guidelines for screen-and-treat strategies to prevent cervical cancer by Mustafa and colleagues (13). This search was conducted up to September 2012 and was not updated. The results were compared to field accuracy of the screening tests.
When there was little evidence available, we systematically obtained the observations of the GDG using a survey (www.surveymonkey.com). Questions in the survey were related to the modality of thermal ablation used, such as This document is intended primarily for policymakers, managers, programme officers, and other professionals in the health sector
According to the GRADE approach, the strength of each recommendation was rated as either strong or conditional. Strong recommendations were made when all the desirable consequences of treatment outweighed the undesirable consequences, and are presented using the wording "recommends". Conditional recommendations were made when the desirable consequences probably outweighed the undesirable consequences, and are worded as "suggests". The implications of the different strengths of recommendations for patients, clinicians and policy-makers are explained in detail in Table 1.

# MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
We followed the WHO guidelines for declaration of interests (DOI) (14). We obtained DOI statements from all GDG members prior to the guideline meetings, and members had to disclose any changes to their interests at the beginning of each meeting. We also updated their DOI statements before the publication of these guidelines. Three experts of the GDG participated in clinical trials on ablative treatment, but it was not assessed as a barrier to participating in the meetings and discussions. The WHO Secretariat concluded that there were no significant conflicts of interest that would exclude any member from participating fully in the guideline development process (see Annex A). Therefore, options for conditional participation, partial or total exclusion of any GDG member were not necessary.
Table 1. Implications of strong and conditional recommendations timing of application, shape of probe, and temperature of probes (Annex C).
Two members of the systematic review team screened studies independently, and extracted and assessed the risk of bias of the individual studies using a tool specific to the study design (e.g. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials (www.handbook-5-1.cochrane.org) or used the risk of bias assessment in the published systematic reviews when available. We used the pooled analyses from systematic reviews when available. However, when not available, one member of the team synthesized the data quantitatively in RevMan 5.2 () or narratively, and another member of the team verified the analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated a risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals by pooling results from randomized studies or pooling results from non-randomized studies with two groups using the random effects model. Effects were converted to absolute effects using the calculated relative effect and a representative baseline risk, typically the pooled proportion of the event without the treatment across studies. When studies with one group receiving an intervention were included (e.g., case series), a pooled proportion of an event (and confidence intervals) was calculated across the studies using the generic inverse variance. For continuous outcomes, a mean difference or a standardized mean difference (when studies used different scales to measure an outcome) was calculated.
For screen-and-treat recommendations, outcome data were not available from randomized or non-randomized studies. We therefore used the same model that was developed to make the recommendations for screen-and-treat strategies to prevent cervical cancer (6). We used an Excel spreadsheet to calculate outcomes based on the sensitivity and specificity of the tests (13), the natural progression of CIN, and treatment of CIN (12).
The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (/ app/handbook/handbook.html). The evidence is presented in GRADE evidence profiles and in evidence-to-decision frameworks that were created using GRADEpro (www. gradepro.org) (Annex D).
The certainty of the evidence is assessed at four levels in the GRADE approach: - High -we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. - Moderate -we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. - Low -our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. - Very low -we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.

# MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations were developed during four teleconference meetings with the GDG. The methodologist presented the evidence-to-decision frameworks during the meetings (completed evidence-to-decision frameworks are in Annex D and the evidence reviews are in Annex E). When formulating the recommendations, the GDG considered and discussed the desirable and undesirable effects of the interventions, the value placed on the outcomes, the associated costs and use of resources, the acceptability of the interventions to all stakeholders, the impact on health equity, and the feasibility of implementation. Judgements were made for each criterion above, and guideline recommendations were agreed. The goal was to reach consensus across the GDG. Disagreements among the GDG members were noted in the evidence-to-decision framework for each judgement. In the case of failure to reach consensus for a recommendation, the planned procedure was for the GDG to take a vote and record the results. However, no votes were taken because the GDG reached consensus during discussion for all of the recommendations. The recommendations were discussed via teleconference, reviewed and revised again by a core group of the GDG, and then final approval was obtained from all GDG members electronically. These guidelines were subsequently written up in full and peer reviewed by an External Review Group that approved the methods and agreed with the recommendations made by the GDG (members are listed in Annex A).

# Strong recommendation Conditional recommendation
For patients Most individuals in this situation would want the recommended course of action, and only a small proportion would not.
Formal decision aids are not likely to be needed to help individuals make decisions consistent with their values and preferences.
The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action, but many would not.

# For clinicians
Most individuals should receive the recommended course of action.
Adherence to this recommendation according to the guidelines could be used as a quality criterion or performance indicator.
Clinicians should recognize that different choices will be appropriate for each individual and that clinicians must help each individual arrive at a management decision consistent with the individual's values and preferences.
Decision aids may be useful to help individuals make decisions consistent with their values and preferences.

# For policy-makers
The recommendation can be adopted as policy in most situations.
Policy-making will require substantial debate and involvement of various stakeholders.
These guidelines provide recommendations for the use of thermal ablation for the treatment of precancerous cervical lesions. These recommendations are applicable for women who have histologically confirmed CIN2+ or for women who have been screened positive in a screen-and-treat strategy. These recommendations expand on the treatment for screenand-treat strategies as provided in the WHO guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention (6).
In these recommendations the term LLETZ (Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone) is used for excision of the transformation zone (TZ) and represents a therapeutic intervention. LLETZ is the original terminology used for excision of the TZ, however in some countries this terminology was changed to LEEP (Loop Electro Excision Procedure) and the two terms are often used interchangeably. The term LEEP has also been used to refer to a diagnostic procedure, requiring the excision of up to 2 cm of tissue from the cervix for the pathologist to make an accurate diagnosis. These guidelines therefore use LLETZ to represent a therapeutic intervention to excise the TZ.

# Eligibility for thermal ablation and cryotherapy
Eligibility for treatment requires a visual assessment ((visual assessment for treatment; VAT) which includes: colposcopy (if available) or naked eye examination of cervix after applying 3-5% acetic acid for 1 minute.
Clinicians usually describe what they see when performing visual inspection (for example, if the TZ is fully visible; if the whole lesion is visible; if the lesion extends into the endocervix), and then consider if the probe can reach the whole lesion. Clinicians can also consider the following classification from the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy according to the visibility of the TZ (15).
- A type 1 TZ is completely ectocervical and is therefore fully visible.
- A type 2 TZ is partially endocervical but is still fully visible. It may be shallow and within range of an ablative probe or may extend beyond reach of an ablative probe. - A type 3 TZ extends out of view up the endocervical canal, i.e., the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ) is not fully visible.
Following assessment as described above, women who screen positive are eligible for ablative therapy if there is no suspicion of invasive or glandular disease, and if:
- the TZ is fully visible, the whole lesion is visible and it does not extend into the endocervix; or - the lesion is type 1 TZ; or - the lesion is type 2 TZ where the probe tip will achieve complete ablation of the SCJ epithelium, i.e., where it can reach the upper limit of the TZ. Sometimes the SCJ can be seen high in the canal but a probe tip would not reach it.  4 These guidelines will also be disseminated at major conferences related to reproductive health, cancers, cervical cancer and HIV, and the aforementioned programme areas.
In the context of the Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative, WHO and partners are working with a number of specific countries that will scale-up screening and treatment. 5 As part of the Initiative that aims at strengthening health systems to eliminate cervical cancer, monitoring systems will be particularly reviewed. In particular the following indicators will be measured: 1) process indicators as screening coverage and treatment coverage with cryotherapy or thermal ablation;
2) impact indicators with morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer through population-based cancer registries; and 3) quality and safety of services indicators. These will measure the use of this guideline and others, as well as the uptake of policies regarding cervical cancer control.
A system of monitoring relevant new evidence and updating the recommendations as new findings become available will be established within a year of implementing the guidelines. An electronic follow-up survey of key end-users of these guidelines will be conducted after the release of the guidelines.
The results of the survey will be used to identify challenges and barriers to the uptake of the guidelines, to evaluate their usefulness for improving service delivery, and to identify topics or gaps in treatment that need to be addressed in future editions.

# Box 1: Terminology for thermal ablation and LLETZ
Thermal ablation is also referred to as "thermocoagulation" and "cold coagulation". This guideline uses "thermal ablation" for the application of a reusable metallic probe that is electrically heated to approximately 100 C, leading to epithelial and stromal destruction of the lesion.
The terms LLETZ (Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone) and LEEP (Loop Electro Excision Procedure) are often used interchangeably. This guideline uses LLETZ for the excision of the transformation zone (TZ) and represents a therapeutic intervention.
In the context of the Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative, WHO and partners are working with a number of specific countries that will scale-up screening and treatment
Women who screen positive are not eligible for ablative therapy if there is any suspicion of invasive or glandular disease (i.e., adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma in situ), and:
- the TZ is not fully visible because it is endocervical (Type 3 TZ), or - it is a type 2 TZ where the SCJ is out of reach of the probe tip.

# Intervals for follow-up
Intervals for follow-up should be conducted according to the WHO guidelines (5,6). According to those recommendations, all women who have received treatment should receive post-treatment follow-up at 1 year to ensure effectiveness of treatment. Post treatment follow-up is critical in particular for women living with HIV or women of unknown HIV status in areas with high endemic HIV infection.

# RECOMMENDATION 1.A.
WHO suggests either LLETZ, or cryotherapy or thermal ablation to treat all women who have histologically confirmed CIN2+ disease and who are eligible for thermal ablation or cryotherapy.
(Conditional recommendation, moderate certainty in evidence of effects)
Remarks: The choice of LLETZ, cryotherapy or thermal ablation depends on the expertise, training, equipment and consumables available, infrastructure and resources in a programme. This recommendation applies to all women, including women living with HIV. See Figure 1.

# RECOMMENDATION 1.B.
WHO suggests thermal ablation be provided at a minimum of 100 C for 20-30 seconds using as many applications as needed to cover the entire transformation zone in overlapping fields.

# (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty in evidence of effects)

# Summary of the evidence
This recommendation is based on a previous recommendation that suggests either cryotherapy or LLETZ for the treatment of women with histologically confirmed CIN 2-3. That evidence showed that the benefits of LLETZ may be greater than cryotherapy, but the harms may be similar. When comparing the effects of thermal ablation to cryotherapy, there is moderate certainty evidence that there are trivial differences in the benefits and harms of these two treatments. Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized studies found evidence that there may be little to no difference between the proportion of women who are cured when treated with thermal ablation (91%) or cryotherapy (90%). A 2-probe method, in which treatment of the visible glandular epithelium with a small conical probe followed by treatment of the ectocervix with a flat probe, was used in some studies, and a one-probe method in others. Direct comparisons of probe methods within a study were not available, and the probe method used was often not reported by the author, and therefore assumptions were based on country setting and may not be accurate. Evidence showed that more women may be cured with a 2-probe method (95%; 95%CI, 93-98%) than a one-probe method (85%; 95%CI, 80-90%), but there is very low certainty in this evidence and more research is needed. The temperature of the probe typically used in studies was 100 oC, and subgroup analysis by 100 oC versus greater than 100 oC (up to 120 oC) did not show differences in curative effects. In most studies, the probe was applied for 20-30 seconds, and there was very low certainty evidence showing fewer cures with applications longer than 30 seconds. Multiple applications up to 5 times were used in most studies in order to cover the entire transformation zone. Very few studies compared these different modalities of thermal ablation, and therefore it is very uncertain which methods of application (temperature, type of probe, number of applications) result in more benefits and less harm.
Although rare, there was low certainty evidence for little to no difference in the number of major infections between the thermal ablation and cryotherapy. For major bleeds, there were inconsistent results from randomized controlled trials and non-comparative studies: low certainty evidence found that thermal ablation may result in slightly fewer major bleeds compared to cryotherapy, 6 fewer bleeds per 1000 women (from 11 to 0 fewer). Five small non-comparative studies found that there may be little to no difference in the number of women having premature deliveries after thermal ablation compared to the general population, but the evidence is uncertain. Based on moderate certainty evidence from randomized controlled trials, the acceptability of both thermal ablation and cryotherapy is likely similar. Though anaesthesia is typically not provided to women for either procedure, moderate certainty evidence showed that it is likely that slightly fewer women (5% fewer -from 16% fewer to 10% more) would have pain with thermal ablation compared with cryotherapy. The GDG agreed that women would probably value cure and the acceptability of the treatments (including pain) over other outcomes.
There are no comparative studies evaluating the benefits and harms of thermal ablation compared to other treatment methods or no treatment in women living with HIV with histologically confirmed CIN 2-3. There are very few studies evaluating cure or other outcomes with thermal ablation in women living with HIV. From the few studies, the proportion of cures in women living with HIV who were treated with thermal ablation was within the range of cures in women not living with HIV. The GDG agreed that given the benefits and harms are similar between thermal ablation and cryotherapy in women not living with HIV, then the benefits and harms between the two treatments in women living with HIV are likely similar. Since cure is typically lower in women living with HIV compared to women not living with HIV, follow-up is important, especially after ablative treatment.
The GDG agreed that the initial cost of thermal ablation and cryotherapy units is often similar, but for cryotherapy the maintenance costs are likely greater and there is the additional cost of gas and transport of gas tanks. The latter made cryotherapy less feasible in some settings and therefore could delay prompt treatment. Thermal ablation requires electricity to charge the batteries for battery-driven devices, or solar power for some models. The GDG also considered that many health care providers may find thermal ablation more acceptable to provide because it takes less time to perform, is easy to perform, and in some settings, is perceived to cause less pain.
Overall, the differences between benefits and harms of thermal ablation and cryotherapy are trivial, but there are likely large resource savings with the use of thermal ablation. Thermal ablation is also probably more acceptable to providers, more available, and therefore more feasible to implement than cryotherapy in some settings. Therefore, the choice between thermal ablation or cryotherapy will be based on expertise, training, equipment and consumables, and infrastructure and resources in a programme. Since a previous recommendation suggests either cryotherapy or LLETZ, and there are trivial differences between cryotherapy and thermal ablation, this recommendation suggests the use of thermal ablation, cryotherapy or LLETZ. This recommendation is also consistent with remarks in previous recommendations to base the choice of which treatment to use on available resources. See Annex D for evidence-to-decision frameworks and evidence reviews.

# RECOMMENDATION 2
In exceptional conditions when LLETZ is not available for women who have histologically confirmed CIN2+ disease or are not eligible for cryotherapy or thermal ablation, WHO recommends an alternative treatment. The choice of alternative treatment will be dependent on the skills and resources available and referral to a higher level of care where a cone biopsy, trachelectomy or hysterectomy can be performed. See Figure 1.

# (Strong recommendation, very low certainty in evidence of effects)
Remarks: This recommendation applies to all women, including women living with HIV.

# Summary of the evidence
We found no evidence comparing the use of ablative treatments with excisional procedures to treat transformation zone or lesions extending into the cervical canal or covering more than 75% of the ectocervix. When reported, noncomparative studies evaluating thermal ablation (and other ablative therapies) exclude these women, or refer them to excisional procedures. The GDG agreed that it is likely that thermal ablation tips will not reach or cover these lesions, resulting in failed treatment or recurrence which can lead to cervical cancer. It is also essential to perform excisional therapy in order to not inadvertently miss an invasive lesion. For these reasons, the GDG agreed that when LLETZ is not available to a women who is not eligible for cryotherapy or thermal ablation, other excisional therapies should be provided, including cone biopsy, trachelectomy or hysterectomy. The type of excision therapy provided will be based on the resources available and skills of the providers. See Annex D for evidence-to-decision frameworks and evidence reviews in Annex E.

# RECOMMENDATION 3
WHO suggests providing either thermal ablation or cryotherapy to women screened positive with hrHPV or VIA or hrHPV followed by VIA, with no histological confirmation and who are eligible for ablative treatment, or providing LLETZ when the woman is not eligible for cryotherapy or thermal ablation.

# (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty in evidence of effects)
Remarks: This recommendation applies to all women, including women living with HIV. The choice of screening tests is based on WHO recommendations for screening and treatment. See Figure 2.

# Summary of the evidence
The evidence comparing the effects of treatment with thermal ablation to cryotherapy was used to model the effects of providing either treatment after screening with hrHPV, VIA or HPV followed by VIA. The evidence for the effects of treating women with confirmed CIN2+ lesions from a systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies was used in the model (see Recommendation 1, Summary of evidence). The test accuracy of hrHPV (95% sensitivity, 84% specificity) and VIA (60% sensitivity, 84% specificity) from a systematic review of evidence and the field were used.
In 1 million women being treated, there may be slightly fewer CIN2+ recurrences when providing thermal ablation rather than cryotherapy (200-400 fewer), as well as fewer cervical cancers (6-9 fewer) and fewer deaths (1-4 fewer). There may be slightly fewer major bleeds (300-1200) or major infections (40-180 fewer) with thermal ablation. The number of women experiencing pain may be lower (1700-7000 fewer). The GDG agreed that women would probably value cure and the acceptability of the treatments (including pain) over other outcomes. The differences were similar to the benefits and harms found when modelled for women living with HIV.
The GDG agreed that better resource use, feasibility, and accessibility seen with programmes in which CIN2-3 lesions are histologically confirmed would be applicable to screenand-treat programmes. This may mean that thermal ablation may lead to more immediate treatment within screen-andtreat programmes compared to cryotherapy in some settings.
Overall, the differences between benefits and harms of providing thermal ablation and cryotherapy in a screenand-treat programme are small, but there are likely large resource savings with the use of thermal ablation. Thermal ablation is also probably more acceptable to providers, does not require a renewable resource such as gas, is more portable than cryotherapy, and therefore more feasible to provide than cryotherapy as part of a screen-and-treat programme in some settings. See Annex D for evidence-to-decision frameworks and Annex E evidence reviews.

# RECOMMENDATION 4
WHO suggests that prophylactic antibiotics are not used when providing thermal ablation.

# (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty in evidence of effects)

# Summary of the evidence
There are no randomized or non-randomized studies that compare the benefits or harms of providing antibiotics or not when women receive thermal ablation. Instead, the pooled proportion of infections requiring treatment was 0.09% (2/1407) across studies where antibiotic use was confirmed, and 0.14% (15/2675) in studies that did not report use (but not confirmed). The GDG agreed that although there may be fewer infections requiring treatment when antibiotics are provided prophylactically, there is a risk of increased antimicrobial resistance and allergic reactions. There was no information about women's preferences or cost of taking antibiotics, but costs are likely greater with antibiotic use. Overall, the potential harms and additional resources probably outweigh any benefits. See Annex D for evidence-todecision frameworks and evidence reviews.

# RECOMMENDATION 5
WHO suggests that trained nurses, midwives or health care workers as well as physicians may perform thermal ablation in order to ensure the availability and accessibility of treatment.

# (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty in evidence of effects)

# Summary of the evidence
There is very low certainty of evidence for differences in the benefits and harms when different health care professionals provide thermal ablation, and there are no trials comparing the consequences of thermal ablation between different health care professionals. Therefore, the proportion of women cured when receiving thermal ablation by colposcopists, gynaecologists, physicians, or non-physicians (including nurses or other health care workers) across individual studies was calculated. The review found that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of women with biopsy confirmed CIN 2-3 who are cured. There is also little to no difference in major bleeding or infections requiring treatment, but this is very uncertain as the analysis included few studies in which a non-physician provided thermal ablation. Major bleeding occurred in 0.1% when provided by physician and 0% by non-physician, and infections occurred in 0.08% when provided by physician and 0% by non-physician. The evidence suggests that fewer women experience pain when a non-physician provides thermal ablation -approximately 50% compared to 70% when provided by a physician. There were no data for premature deliveries. The GDG agreed that women would probably value cure and the acceptability of the treatments (including pain) over other outcomes.
The GDG agreed that if trained nurses or other health care workers provided thermal ablation, the costs would be lower than if physicians performed thermal ablation. Training nonphysicians may also increase the availability and accessibility of thermal ablation, and reduce delays in treatment.
Overall, the differences between benefits and harms between different health care providers performing thermal ablation are trivial, with the exception of pain, which favours nonphysicians performing thermal ablation. When non-physicians perform thermal ablation the costs are likely lower, and it may increase availability and accessibility of thermal ablation which may increase the benefits of treatment. See Annex D for evidence-to-decision frameworks and evidence reviews.

# RECOMMENDATION 6
In settings where LLETZ is available and accessible, WHO suggests LLETZ rather than thermal ablation or cryotherapy for women who test positive after prior thermal ablation or cryotherapy.

# (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty in evidence of effects)
In settings where LLETZ is unavailable or inaccessible, the GDG recommends thermal ablation or cryotherapy rather than no treatment for women who test positive after prior thermal ablation or cryotherapy.

# (Strong recommendation, very low certainty in evidence of effects)
Remarks: This recommendation is consistent with the recommendation to provide LLETZ after prior cryotherapy.

# Summary of the evidence
We found no studies that directly compared the number of women who were cured after retreatment with thermal ablation or cryotherapy or LLETZ. Three studies reported that 34/40 women with histologically confirmed CIN2+ disease who screened positive after 4 months to 2 years were cured when retreated with thermal ablation (85% (CI 95%, from 74 to 96%). In comparison, a review of studies found that approximately 74% of women previously treated with cryotherapy who were retreated with cryotherapy were cured, and 92% of women retreated with conization were cured. No studies measured adverse effects when retreating with thermal ablation versus other treatments.
WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions Overall, the evidence is uncertain about the effects of retreatment with thermal ablation, cryotherapy, LLETZ or conization in women who test positive after previous treatment with thermal ablation. Given the paucity of evidence, the GDG agreed that the recommendation for LLETZ would be consistent with a previously published recommendation to provide LLETZ for women who screen positive after prior treatment with cryotherapy. See Annex D for evidence-to-decision frameworks and evidence reviews.

# RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
The WHO guidelines are based on the best available evidence for the benefits and harms of thermal ablation compared to other treatments to prevent cervical cancer, and on the consideration of issues related to patient values and preferences, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and resources. The evidence in this area continues to grow, and we provide guidance about the conduct of future research that may have an impact on the recommendations or strength of the recommendations in the next update of this guideline. For this guideline, a comprehensive and up-to-date systematic review and metaanalysis was used to inform most of these recommendations for thermal ablation (10) and additional systematic reviews were conducted.
However, few studies compared thermal ablation to other treatments for histologically confirmed precancerous cervical lesions. Instead, studies that followed a single group of women who received thermal ablation were used and these results were indirectly compared to evidence from studies that followed a single group of women receiving the other treatments. For many recommendations, this indirect evidence resulted in recommendations based on low or very low certainty evidence.
Although the GDG was able to also use preliminary results from small ongoing trials comparing thermal ablation to other treatments, more comparative studies are needed. The need for comparative studies is urgent, particularly in women living with HIV, where there is little information about cures with thermal ablation, and no information about other important outcomes, such as HIV shedding or risk of transmission after treatment. The search for evidence also found few studies in which thermal ablation was used in a screen-and-treat strategy when CIN is not histologically confirmed.
There were also few studies that reported on outcomes after treatment of women who screened positive for precancerous lesions after prior treatment with thermal ablation. Additional studies assessing health delivery models of screen-and-treat strategies which include thermal ablation are needed. Studies evaluating delivery in rural health facilities or mobile outreach services could be compared to models in fixed referral sites and the use of centralized or decentralized testing. Studies should follow these women from screen-and-treat programmes and report their outcomes. Future research should also include not just outcomes for cure and major complications, but also for outcomes that the GDG identified as important to women, such as fertility and reproductive outcomes.
There is also little information about the best methods to apply thermal ablation in practice. There were no published studies that compared different modalities, such as one-or two-probe methods, different temperatures of the probes, or timing and number of applications. The GDG did not recommend one modality over another for this reason, but there was much discussion in particular about the one-or two-probe methods.
While it is thought that the practice in the UK is the two-probe method, little could be concluded from studies in that setting as the studies did not adequately describe the method. In future, studies should clearly report the method of thermal ablation used, and studies comparing different modalities should be conducted.
This guidelines is based on the best available evidence for the benefits and harms of thermal ablation and consideration of issues related to patient values and preferences, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and resources.
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN): a precancerous condition involving the covering layer (epithelium) of the cervix. It can be diagnosed using a microscope. The condition is graded as CIN1, 2 or 3, according to the thickness of the abnormal epithelium (one third, two thirds or the entire thickness)
Cold knife conization (CKC): the removal of a coneshaped area from the cervix, including portions of the outer (ectocervix) and inner cervix (endocervix), usually done in a hospital; the amount of tissue removed will depend on the size of the lesion and the likelihood of finding invasive cancer Colposcopy: the examination of the cervix, vagina and vulva with an instrument that provides strong light and magnifies a field, allowing specific patterns in the epithelial (surface) layer and surrounding blood vessels to be examined Cryotherapy: by applying a highly cooled metal disc (cryoprobe) to the cervix and freezing the abnormal areas (along with normal areas) covered by it, cryotherapy eliminates precancerous areas on the cervix by freezing (i.e. It is an ablative method)
Cytology: the study of the structure of cells under the microscope; abnormal findings are usually confirmed by biopsy Epithelium (plural -epithelia): a covering or lining, comprising one or more layers of cells; usually protective of the organ it covers
Histologically: the study of the microscopic structure of tissues; a histological examination uses thin slices of stained tissue to determine the presence or absence of disease Hysterectomy: surgery to remove the uterus and, sometimes, the cervix (when the uterus and the cervix are removed, it is called a total hysterectomy; when only the uterus is removed, it is called a partial hysterectomy)
Neoplasia: process of new growth or tumour formation, sometimes malignant
Screening: a public health intervention provided to an asymptomatic target population; it is not undertaken to diagnose a disease, but to identify individuals with increased probability of having either the disease itself or a precursor of the disease Sensitivity: the proportion of people who have a condition who are identified correctly by a test (true positives).

# MEMBERS OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEW GROUP (ERG)
WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes ANNEX C Survey to collect systematic observations of the Guideline Development Group

# Evidence for the implementation of thermal ablation
This is not a survey. It is a form to systematically gather your observations about the implementation and feasibility of thermal ablation so that the World Health Organization can make recommendations.
In order to make recommendations, we need to systematically gather evidence from published literature and unpublished literature. To date, there is little literature about the implementation and feasibility of using thermal ablation. The information you provide about the screen-and-treat programme or practice will be the evidence upon which we will make the recommendations. The information should not be your opinion based on what you have heard or read, it is your experiences and observations. Please note that you can answer the questions from the perspective of the whole programme or your own practice. The information you provide will be summarized with other information. It will not be presented in connection with a specific programme or clinic or your practice.
Please complete these questions before .... If you do not provide one of the techniques do not consider it in your rankings, but please indicate the technique at the end of the question.

# Bigger lesion

# Endocervical involvement of lesion
Non/partial visible junction Older woman

# HIV positive status woman
Woman contemplating pregnancy Comments:

# Preferred choice is cryotherapy
Preferred choice is thermal ablation
Thermal ablation          Cryotherapy          LEEP/LLETZ

# Don't know I did not consider the following technique in my ranking:
WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes

# Summary of Findings Table
The WHO GDG agreed that cures were likely similar with thermal ablation or cryotherapy.
Studies were identified by use of two probe or one probe by country location, but many assumptions were made as authors did not report probe method used or shape of probe or size. The two-probe method appeared better for cure. There was also no clear information about applications or overlapping applications.
For HIV-positive women there were very few studies. The WHO GDG noted that cure rates are lower in HIV-positive women (similar to failed HPV clearance in immunocompromised women).
It was unclear whether the relative benefits would be different between the treatments. Since not known, the WHO GDG agreed that they could not recommend thermal ablation similarly to cryotherapy.

# ANNEX D Evidence to decision frameworks
Should thermal ablation versus cryotherapy be used for women with histologically confirmed CIN 2-3? (Recommendations 1 and 2) For most outcomes, the evidence from comparative studies was of low certainty. However, there was information from case series including over 3000 people that assessed either thermal ablation or cryotherapy that supported the comparative evidence. Therefore, the overall evidence was moderate certainty for similar effects. WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes We performed a literature review searching comprehensively for resource use and thermal ablation, and reviewed included studies from the systematic review published by Randall 2018.
Joshi 2013: The authors describe the challenges in maintaining cryotherapy services due to the high-cost refrigerant gas.
Campbell 2016: Cost-effectiveness was not measured, however they estimated in Malawi that after initial purchase of equipment, cost savings could be made after 80-90 women were treated with thermal ablation.
Viviano 2017: Cost of thermal ablation unit similar to cost of cryotherapy unit.
Costs estimated in Campos 2016 (no thermal ablation data)

# Based on the observations of the WHO GDG (collected systematically)
Maintenance costs appear lower with thermal ablation compared to cryotherapy, although electricity needs to be reliably maintained or battery power used (gas transport and costs appear higher), disinfection products, probe replacement similar; LLETZ is more expensive with more resources needed.
From experiences in Dundee, non-battery operated thermal ablation, required replacement of a probe due to issues with the Teflon after 1000-2000 uses, but there were no recurrent costs.
Initial costs of machines appear similar between thermal and cryotherapy (although some reported thermal ablation was more expensive) Standard electricity powered cost 3150 (including shipping Battery powered cost 1900 (including shipping Liger Thermal Coagulator cost US$ 1500
The WHO GDG agreed that the costs of different thermal ablation equipment is similar.
The WHO GDG also agreed that the consumable costs are higher with cryotherapy. There are higher maintenance costs with higher numbers of women (3 months of use, 50 applications -need maintenance).
Costs are generally incurred because countries have money to procure but little money to maintain.

# Certainty of evidence of required resources
What is the certainty of the evidence of resource requirements (costs)? From the review of the literature:

# JUDGEMENT RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Campbell 2016: A higher percentage of women received same-day treatment at an urban hospital in Malawi (89%) than in two semi-urban health centres (68% and 64%) where thermos coagulators and trained staff were not always available.
Ibrahim 2012: An Irish study accessing the need to change the cervical cancer screening age for women <25 years found biopsy-proven cervical abnormalities in 43% of women <25 years who were referred to a Limerick colposcopy clinic.
Many areas (e.g. urban) receive gas easily -although some rural areas cannot receive gas easily. Therefore with thermal ablation equity is probably increased for rural areas and even some urban areas.
The WHO GDG agreed thermal ablation would increase accessibility -it is portable. We performed a literature review searching comprehensively for acceptability and thermal ablation, and reviewed included studies from Randall 2018.
In addition to the acceptability measured in comparative studies (see Summary of Findings table above), Duncan 1984 reported that a treatment temperature of 100 oC is insufficient to produce charring. Subsequent absence of smoke and smell contribute to high acceptability to patient and physicians; extremely short duration of treatment renders the associated discomfort tolerable for most patients, for whom anesthesia in unnecessary.
Singh 1988: much shorter treatment time, seldom exceeding 80 seconds for 3 applications per patient compared to 20-30 minutes for cryotherapy.
Campbell 2016: In a Malawian screen-and-treat study, six local providers reported satisfaction with the training received in ablative techniques, and high perceived patient acceptability of thermal ablation treatment. The four providers with experience using both cryotherapy and thermal ablation reported faster treatment times, fewer treatment sequelae, and greater perceived patient acceptability with thermal ablation.
Paul 2013: Training for use of cryotherapy was well received.

# Systematic observations from the WHO GDG
The WHO GDG indicated that 6/13 thought thermal ablation would be easy to use by clinicians and therefore more acceptable than cryotherapy or LLETZ, and indicated thermal ablation is more acceptable to women likely because is a faster treatment.
The WHO GDG agreed that acceptability would increase if more information about the procedures and follow-up was provided.
The WHO GDG agreed that more data should be collected to determine any differences in acceptability in women who are younger or nonparous or multiparous.
The WHO GDG also suggested that acceptability may be higher because it is more readily available than cryotherapy. Viviano 2017: In a screen-and-treat programme in Cameroon, 91% of women (110/121) screened positive were eligible for thermal ablation. Following evaluation of thermal ablation, the authors concluded that it is a valuable option due to its high availability, efficiency, simplicity, light weight and ease of transportation to remote areas that have electricity.

# Systematic observations from the WHO GDG
7/13 -no barriers to use of thermal ablation; but 3/12 thought electricity supply a barrier. 6/13 -thermal ablation machine portable and small. 9/13 -more reliable equipment and available.
Equipment used by the WHO GDG: Standard electricity-powered 10/12 Hand-held battery-operated 9/12
The WHO GDG noted that when centres run out of gas then women are not treated which result in delays and then women often do not return for treatment.
Maintenance is much less with thermal ablation -however, we do not have much information in LMICs (although we have info in Scotland). could obtain some information
There may be some delay in delivery of thermal ablation units, so important to ensure that there is availability and accessibility of units
The WHO GDG also noted that provider time with cryotherapy is 10 to 20 mins; and with thermal ablation it is less than 10. It has been very important in campaigns for screening and treatment to have the shorter time.
Battery-operated units would negate need for electricity.
The WHO GDG agreed that multiple areas already provide thermal ablation.
WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes

# (Conditional recommendation, moderate certainty in evidence of effects)
Remarks: The choice of LLETZ, or cryotherapy or thermal ablation depends on the expertise, training, equipment and consumables available, infrastructure and resources in a programme. This recommendation applies to all women, including women living with HIV.

# Recommendation 1.b
The WHO GDG suggests thermal ablation be provided at a minimum of 100 C for 20-30 seconds using as many applications as needed to cover the entire transformation zone in overlapping fields.

# (Conditional recommendation, very low certainty in evidence of effects) Recommendation 2
In exceptional conditions when LLETZ is not available for women who have histologically confirmed CIN2+ disease and are not eligible for cryotherapy or thermal ablation, the WHO GDG recommends an alternative treatment. The choice of alternative treatment will be dependent on the skills and resources available and referral to a higher level of care where a cone biopsy, trachelectomy or hysterectomy can be performed.

# (Strong recommendation, very low certainty in evidence of effects)
Remarks: This recommendation applies to all women including women living with HIV.
This recommendation is based on a previous recommendation that suggests either cryotherapy or LLETZ to treat women with histologically confirmed CIN 2-3. That evidence showed that the benefits of LLETZ may be greater than cryotherapy, but the harms may be similar. When comparing the effects of thermal ablation to cryotherapy, there is moderate certainty evidence that there are trivial differences in the benefits and harms of these two treatments. Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized studies found evidence that there may be little to no difference between the proportion of women who are cured when treated with thermal ablation (91%) or cryotherapy (90%). A two-probe method, in which treatment of the visible glandular epithelium with a small conical probe followed by treatment of the ectocervix with a flat probe was used in some studies, and a one-probe method in others. Direct comparisons of probe methods within a study were not available, and the probe method used was often not reported by the author, and therefore assumptions were based on country setting and may not be accurate.
Evidence showed that more women may be cured with a two-probe method (95%; 95%CI, 93-98%) than a one-probe method (85%; 95%CI, 80-90%), but there is very low certainty in this evidence and more research is needed. The temperature of the probe typically used in studies was 100oC, and subgroup analysis by 100 oC versus greater than 100 oC (up to 120 oC) did not show differences in curative effects. In most studies, the probe was applied for 20-30 seconds, and there was very low certainty evidence showing fewer cures with applications longer than 30 seconds. Multiple applications up to five times were used in most studies in order to cover the entire transformation zone. Very few studies compared these different modalities of thermal ablation, and therefore it is very uncertain which methods of application (temperature, type of probes, number of applications) result in more benefits and less harm.
Although rare, there was low certainty evidence for little to no difference in the number of major infections between the thermal ablation and cryotherapy. For major bleeds, there were inconsistent results from randomized controlled trials and noncomparative studies: low certainty evidence found that thermal ablation may result in slightly fewer major bleeds compared to cryotherapy, six fewer bleeds per 1000 women (from 11 to 0 fewer). Five small non-comparative studies found that there

# TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION
WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes may be little to no difference in the number of women having premature deliveries after thermal ablation compared to the general population, but the evidence is uncertain. Based on moderate certainty evidence from randomized controlled trials, the acceptability of both thermal ablation and cryotherapy is likely similar. Though anaesthesia is typically not provided to women for either procedure, moderate certainty evidence showed that it is likely that slightly fewer women (5% fewer (from 16% fewer to 10% more) would have pain with thermal ablation compared to cryotherapy. The WHO GDG agreed that women would probably value cure and the acceptability of the treatments (including pain) over other outcomes.
There are no comparative studies evaluating the benefits and harms of thermal ablation compared to other treatment methods or no treatment in women living with HIV with histologically confirmed CIN 2-3. There are very few studies evaluating cure or other outcomes with thermal ablation in women living with HIV. From the few studies that do exist, the proportion of cures in women living with HIV who were treated with thermal ablation was within the range of cures in women not living with HIV. The WHO GDG agreed that given the benefits and harms are similar between thermal ablation and cryotherapy in women not living with HIV, then the benefits and harms between the two treatments in women living with HIV are likely similar. Since cure is typically lower in women living with HIV compared to women not living with HIV, follow-up is important, especially after ablative treatment.
The WHO GDG agreed that the initial cost of thermal ablation and cryotherapy units are often similar, but for cryotherapy the maintenance costs are likely greater and there is the additional cost of gas and transportation of gas tanks. The latter made cryotherapy less feasible in some settings and therefore could delay prompt treatment. Thermal ablation requires electricity to charge batteries for battery-driven devices, or solar power for some models. The WHO GDG also considered that many health care providers may find thermal ablation more acceptable to provide because it takes less time to perform, is easy to perform, and in some settings, is perceived to cause less pain.
Overall, the differences between the benefits and harms of thermal ablation and cryotherapy are trivial, but there are likely large resource savings with the use of thermal ablation. Thermal ablation is also probably more acceptable to providers, more available, and therefore more feasible to implement than cryotherapy in some settings. Therefore, the choice between thermal ablation or cryotherapy will be based on expertise, training, equipment and consumables, and infrastructure and resources in a programme. Since a previous recommendation suggests either cryotherapy or LLETZ, and there are trivial differences between cryotherapy and thermal ablation, this recommendation suggests the use of thermal ablation, cryotherapy or LLETZ. This recommendation is also consistent with remarks in previous recommendations to base the choice of which treatment to useon available resources.
We found no evidence comparing the use of ablative treatments with excisional procedures to treat transformation zone or lesions extending into the cervical canal or covering more than 75% of the ectocervix. When reported, non-comparative studies evaluating thermal ablation (and other ablative therapies) exclude these women, or refer them to excisional procedures. The WHO GDG agreed that it is likely that thermal ablation tips will not reach or cover these lesions, resulting in failed treatment or recurrence which can lead to cervical cancer. It is also essential to perform excisional therapy in order to not inadvertently miss an invasive lesion. For these reasons, the WHO GDG agreed that when LLETZ is not available to women who are not eligible for cryotherapy or thermal ablation, other excisional therapies should be provided, including cone biopsy, trachelectomy or hysterectomy. The type of excision therapy provided will be based on the resources available and skills of the providers.

# IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Proper techniques for sterilization of equipment should follow manufacturers' instructions. Thermal ablation should be monitored in practice and information collected about facilitators and barriers to implementation, as well as outcomes. Information about whether some women cannot have ablative methods should be gathered. For women who cannot receive ablation, infrastructure to access excisional methods needs to be available.

# RESEARCH PRIORITIES
More data are needed about maintenance costs and the logistics of use of thermal ablation, as well as information the reasons why women cannot use from ablative methods; measures of pain when a biopsy is done or not done before thermal ablation; and research into abstinence (e.g., in women of HIV-positive status). Women may be screened and treated for pre-cancerous cervical lesions based on various strategies including HPV test, visual inspection with acetic acid, or cytology. Treatments for women screened positive can be cryotherapy, or LLETZ. LLETZ is provided for women not eligible for cryotherapy. One of the objectives of screen and treat algorithms is to ensure screening is followed by treatment (e.g., screen and treat in a single visit).

# CONFLICT OF INTERESTS:
See Annex A
Is the problem a priority?
JUDGEMENT RESEARCH EVIDENCE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS  No  Probably no  Probably yes  Yes  Varies  Don't know
Current WHO guidelines for screen-and-treat strategies do not include treatment with thermal ablation.
The WHO guidelines recommend against the use of CKC as a treatment in a screen-and-treat strategy. Therefore, all screen-and-treat strategies below involve treatment with cryotherapy, or LLETZ when the patient is not eligible for cryotherapy.
WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions -Annexes See Annex E. We did not find studies that followed and reported on all women who were screened and did not or did receive thermal ablation or cryotherapy. We therefore modelled outcomes based on reviews of sensitivity and specificity of various screening tests and reviews of non-randomized studies comparing thermal ablation to cryotherapy.

# Systematic reviews
See data from Recommendation 1 and 2.

# Risks when treated with thermal ablation or cryotherapy