Myomectomy

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

The emergence of the coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (COVID-19) in December 2019, has resulted in a global pandemic that has challenged the medical community and will continue to represent a public health emergency for the next several months.¹ It has rapidly spread globally, infecting many individuals in an unprecedented rate of infection and worldwide reach. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization designated COVID-19 as a pandemic. While the majority of infected individuals are asymptomatic or develop only mild symptoms, some have an unfortunate clinical course resulting in multi-organ failure and death.²

It is accepted that the virus mainly spreads during close contact and via respiratory droplets.³ The average time from infection to onset of symptoms ranges from 2 to 14 days, with an average of 5 days.⁴ Recommended measures to prevent the spread of the infection include social distancing (at least 6 feet from others), meticulous hand hygiene, and wearing a mask covering the mouth and nose when in public.⁵ Aiming to mitigate the risk of viral dissemination for patients and health care providers, and to preserve hospital resources, all nonessential medical interventions were initially suspended. Recently, the American College of Surgeons in a joint statement with 9 women’s health care societies have provided recommendations on how to resume clinical activities as we recover from the pandemic.⁶

As we reinitiate clinical activities, gynecologists have been alerted of the potential risk of viral dissemination during gynecologic minimally invasive surgical procedures due to the presence of the virus in blood, stool, and the potential risk of aerosolization of the virus, especially when using smoke-generating devices.^7,8 This risk is not limited to intubation and extubation of the airway during anesthesia; the risk also presents itself during other aerosol-generating procedures, such as laparoscopy or robotic surgery.^9,10

Hysteroscopy is considered the gold standard procedure for the diagnosis and management of intrauterine pathologies.¹¹ It is frequently performed in an office setting without the use of anesthesia.^11,12 It is usually well tolerated, with only a few patients reporting discomfort.¹² It allows for immediate treatment (using the “see and treat” approach) while avoiding not only the risk of anesthesia, as stated, but also the need for intubation—which has a high risk of droplet contamination in COVID-19–infected individuals.¹³

Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures?

The novel and rapidly changing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic present many challenges to the gynecologist. Significant concerns have been raised regarding potential risk of viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery due to aerosolization of viral particles and the presence of the virus in blood and the gastrointestinal tract of infected patients.⁷ Diagnostic, and some simple, hysteroscopic procedures are commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with the patient awake. Complex hysteroscopic interventions, however, are generally performed in the operating room, typically with the use of general anesthesia. Hysteroscopy has the theoretical risks of viral dissemination when performed in COVID-19–positive patients. Two important questions must be addressed to better understand the potential risk of COVID-19 viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures.

Continue to: 1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?...

1. Is the virus present in the vaginal fluid of women infected with COVID-19?

Recent studies have confirmed the presence of viral particles in urine, feces, blood, and tears in addition to the respiratory tract in patients infected with COVID-19.^3,14,15 The presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the female genital system is currently unknown. Previous studies, of other epidemic viral infections, have demonstrated the presence of the virus in the female genital tract in affected patients of Zika virus and Ebola.^16,17 However, 2 recent studies have failed to demonstrate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the vaginal fluid of pregnant¹⁴ and not pregnant¹⁸ women with severe COVID-19 infection.

2. Is there risk of viral dissemination during hysteroscopy if using electrosurgery?

There are significant concerns with possible risk of COVID-19 transmission to health care providers in direct contact with infected patients during minimally invasive gynecologic procedures due to direct contamination and aerosolization of the virus.^10,19 Current data on COVID-19 transmission during surgery are limited. However, it is important to recognize that viral aerosolization has been documented with other viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus and hepatitis B.²⁰ A recent report called for awareness in the surgical community about the potential risks of COVID-19 viral dissemination during laparoscopic surgery. Among other recommendations, international experts advised minimizing the use of electrosurgery to reduce the creation of surgical plume, decreasing the pneumoperitoneum pressure to minimum levels, and using suction devices in a closed system.²¹ Although these preventive measures apply to laparoscopic surgery, it is important to consider that hysteroscopy is performed in a unique environment.

During hysteroscopy the uterine cavity is distended with a liquid medium (normal saline or electrolyte-free solutions); this is opposed to gynecologic laparoscopy, in which the peritoneal cavity is distended with carbon dioxide.²² The smoke produced with the use of hysteroscopic electrosurgical instruments generates bubbles that are immediately cooled down to the temperature of the distention media and subsequently dissolve into it. Therefore, there are no bubbles generated during hysteroscopic surgery that are subsequently released into the air. This results in a low risk for viral dissemination during hysteroscopic procedures. Nevertheless, the necessary precautions to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during hysteroscopic intervention are extremely important.

Recommendations for hysteroscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

We provide our overall recommendations for hysteroscopy, as well as those specific to the office and hospital setting.

Recommendations: General

Limit hysteroscopic procedures to COVID-19–negative patients and to those patients in whom delaying the procedure could result in adverse clinical outcomes.²³

Universally screen for potential COVID-19 infection. When possible, a phone interview to triage patients based on their symptoms and infection exposure status should take place before the patient arrives to the health care center. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection who require immediate evaluation should be directed to COVID-19–designated emergency areas.

Universally test for SARS-CoV-2 before procedures performed in the operating room (OR). Using nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of viral RNA, employing molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), within 48 to 72 hours prior to all OR hysteroscopic procedures is strongly recommended. Adopting this testing strategy will aid to identify asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2‒infected patients, allowing to defer the procedure, if possible, among patients testing positive. If tests are limited, testing only patients scheduled for hysteroscopic procedures in which general or regional anesthesia will be required is acceptable.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients undergoing in-office hysteroscopic diagnostic or minor operative procedures without the use of anesthesia is not required.

Limit the presence of a companion. It is understood that visitor policies may vary at the discretion of each institution’s guidelines. Children and individuals over the age of 60 years should not be granted access to the center. Companions will be subjected to the same screening criteria as patients.

Provide for social distancing and other precautionary measures. If more than one patient is scheduled to be at the facility at the same time, ensure that the facility provides adequate space to allow the appropriate social distancing recommendations between patients. Hand sanitizers and facemasks should be available for patients and companions.

Provide PPE for clinicians. All health care providers in close contact with the patient must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an apron and gown, a surgical mask, eye protection, and gloves. Health care providers should wear PPE deemed appropriate by their regulatory institutions following their local and national guidelines during clinical patient interactions.

Restrict surgical attendees to vital personnel. The participation of learners by physical presence in the office or operating room should be restricted.

Continue to: Recommendations: Office setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Advise patients to come to the office alone. If the patient requires a companion, a maximum of one adult companion under the age of 60 should be accepted.
• Limit the number of health care team members present in the procedure room.

Intraprocedural recommendations

• Choose the appropriate device(s) that will allow for an effective and fast procedure.
• Use the recommended PPE for all clinicians.
• Limit the movement of staff members in and out of the procedure room.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same procedure room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Allow for patients to recover from the procedure in the same room as the procedure took place in order to avoid potential contamination of multiple rooms.
• Expedite patient discharge.
• Follow up after the procedure by phone or telemedicine.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Continue to: Recommendations: Operating room setting...

Preprocedural recommendations

• Perform adequate patient screening for potential COVID-19 infection. (Screening should be independent of symptoms and not be limited to those with clinical symptoms.)
• Limit the number of health care team members in the operating procedure room.
• To minimize unnecessary staff exposure, have surgeons and staff not needed for intubation remain outside the OR until intubation is completed and leave the OR before extubation.

Intraprocedure recommendations

• Limit personnel in the OR to a minimum.
• Staff should not enter or leave the room during the procedure.
• When possible, use conscious sedation or regional anesthesia to avoid the risk of viral dissemination at the time of intubation/extubation.
• Choose the device that will allow an effective and fast procedure.
• Favor non–smoke-generating devices, such as hysteroscopic scissors, graspers, and tissue retrieval systems.
• Connect active suction to the outflow, especially when using smoke-generating instruments, to facilitate the extraction of surgical smoke.

Postprocedure recommendations

• When more than one case is scheduled to be performed in the same room, allow enough time in between cases to grant a thorough OR decontamination.
• Expedite postprocedure recovery and patient discharge.
• After completion of the procedure, staff should remove scrubs and change into clean clothing.
• Use standard endoscope disinfection procedures, as they are effective and should not be modified.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global health emergency. Our knowledge of this devastating virus is constantly evolving as we continue to fight this overwhelming disease. Theoretical risk of “viral” dissemination is considered extremely low, or negligible, during hysterosocopy. Hysteroscopic procedures in COVID-19–positive patients with life-threatening conditions or in patients in whom delaying the procedure could worsen outcomes should be performed taking appropriate measures. Patients who test negative for COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR) and require hysteroscopic procedures, should be treated using universal precautions. ●

Uterine leiomyomata (fibroids) are the most common pelvic tumor diagnosed in women.¹ Women with symptomatic fibroids often report abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and pelvic cramping, fullness, or pain. Fibroids also may cause frequency of urination and contribute to fertility and pregnancy problems. Treatment options for the AUB caused by fibroids include, but are not limited to, hysterectomy, myomectomy, uterine artery embolization, endometrial ablation, insertion of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device, focused ultrasound surgery, radiofrequency ablation, leuprolide acetate, and elagolix plus low-dose hormone add-back (Oriahnn; AbbVie, North Chicago, Illinois).¹ Oriahnn is the most recent addition to our treatment armamentarium for fibroids and represents the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved long-term hormonal option for AUB caused by fibroids.

Gene dysregulation contributes to fibroid development

Most uterine fibroids are clonal tumors, which develop following a somatic mutation in a precursor uterine myocyte. The somatic mutation causes gene dysregulation that stimulates cell growth resulting in a benign tumor mass. The majority of fibroids contain a mutation in one of the following 6 genes: mediator complex subunit 12 (MED12), high mobility group AT-hook (HMGA2 or HMGA1), RAD51B, fumarate hydratase (FH), collagen type IV, alpha 5 chain (COL4A5), or collagen type IV alpha 6 chain (COL4A6).²

Gene dysregulation in fibroids may arise following chromothripsis of the uterine myocyte genome

Chromothripsis is a catastrophic intracellular genetic event in which one or more chromosomes are broken and reassemble in a new nucleic acid sequence, producing a derivative chromosome that contains complex genetic rearrangements.³ Chromothripsis is believed to occur frequently in uterine myocytes. It is unknown why uterine myocytes are susceptible to chromothripsis,³ or why a catastrophic intracellular event such as chromothripsis results in preferential mutations in the 6 genes that are associated with myoma formation.

Estrogen and progesterone influence fibroid size and cell activity

Although uterine fibroids are clonal tumors containing broken genes, they are also exquisitely responsive to estradiol and progesterone. Estradiol and progesterone play an important role in regulating fibroid size and function.⁴ Estrogen stimulates uterine fibroids to increase in size. In a hypoestrogenic state, uterine fibroids decrease in size. In addition, a hypoestrogenic state results in an atrophic endometrium and thereby reduces AUB. For women with uterine fibroids and AUB, a reversible hypoestrogenic state can be induced either with a parenteral GnRH-agonist analogue (leuprolide) or an oral GnRH-antagonist (elagolix). Both leuprolide and elagolix are approved for the treatment of uterine fibroids (see below).

Surprisingly, progesterone stimulates cell division in normal uterine myocytes and fibroid cells.⁵ In the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, uterine myocyte mitoses are more frequent than in the follicular phase. In addition, synthetic progestins appear to maintain fibroid size in a hypoestrogenic environment. In one randomized trial, women with uterine fibroids treated with leuprolide acetate plus a placebo pill for 24 weeks had a 51% reduction in uterine volume as measured by ultrasound.⁶ Women with uterine fibroids treated with leuprolide acetate plus the synthetic progestin, oral medroxyprogesterone acetate 20 mg daily, had only a 15% reduction in uterine volume.⁶ This finding suggests that synthetic progestins partially block the decrease in uterine volume that occurs in a hypoestrogenic state.

Further evidence that progesterone plays a role in fibroid biology is the observation that treatment of women with uterine fibroids with the antiprogestin ulipristal decreases fibroid size and reduces AUB.^7-9 Ulipristal was approved for the treatment of fibroids in many countries but not the United States. Reports of severe, life-threatening liver injury—some necessitating liver transplantation—among women using ulipristal prompted the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2020 to recommend that women stop taking ulipristal. In addition, the EMA recommended that no woman should initiate ulipristal treatment at this time.¹⁰

Continue to: Leuprolide acetate...

Leuprolide acetate

Leuprolide acetate is a peptide GnRH-agonist analogue. Initiation of leuprolide treatment stimulates gonadotropin release, but with chronic administration pituitary secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) decreases, resulting in reduced ovarian follicular activity, anovulation, and low serum concentration of estradiol and progesterone. Leuprolide treatment concomitant with iron therapy is approved by the FDA for improving red blood cell volume prior to surgery in women with fibroids, AUB, and anemia.¹¹ Among women with fibroids, AUB, and anemia, after 12 weeks of treatment, the hemoglobin concentration was ≥12 g/dL in 79% treated with leuprolide plus iron and 56% treated with iron alone.¹¹ The FDA recommends limiting preoperative leuprolide treatment to no more than 3 months. The approved leuprolide regimens are a maximum of 3 monthly injections of leuprolide 3.75 mg or a single injection of leuprolide 11.25 mg. Leuprolide treatment prior to hysterectomy surgery for uterine fibroids usually will result in a decrease in uterine size and may facilitate vaginal hysterectomy.

Elagolix plus estradiol plus norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn)

GnRH analogues cause a hypoestrogenic state resulting in adverse effects, including moderate to severe hot flashes and a reduction in bone mineral density. One approach to reducing the unwanted effects of hot flashes and decreased bone density is to combine a GnRH analogue with low-dose steroid hormone add-back therapy. Combining a GnRH analogue with low-dose steroid hormone add-back permits long-term treatment of AUB caused by fibroids, with few hot flashes and a minimal decrease in bone mineral density. The FDA recently has approved the combination of elagolix plus low-dose estradiol and norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn) for the long-term treatment of AUB caused by fibroids.

Elagolix is a nonpeptide oral GnRH antagonist that reduces pituitary secretion of LH and FSH, resulting in a decrease in ovarian follicular activity, anovulation, and low serum concentration of estradiol and progesterone. Unlike leuprolide, which causes an initial increase in LH and FSH secretion, the initiation of elagolix treatment causes an immediate and sustained reduction in LH and FSH secretion. Combining elagolix with a low dose of estradiol and norethindrone acetate reduces the side effects of hot flashes and decreased bone density. Clinical trials have reported that the combination of elagolix (300 mg) twice daily plus estradiol (1 mg) and norethindrone acetate (0.5 mg) once daily is an effective long-term treatment of AUB caused by uterine fibroids.

To study the efficacy of elagolix (alone or with estrogen-progestin add-back therapy) for the treatment of AUB caused by uterine fibroids, two identical trials were performed,¹² in which 790 women participated. The participants had a mean age of 42 years and were documented to have heavy menstrual bleeding (>80 mL blood loss per cycle) and ultrasound-diagnosed uterine fibroids. The participants were randomized to one of 3 groups:

• elagolix (300 mg twice daily) plus low-dose steroid add-back (1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate once daily),
• elagolix 300 mg twice daily with no steroid add-back (elagolix alone), or
• placebo for 6 months.¹²

Menstrual blood loss was quantified using the alkaline hematin method on collected sanitary products. The primary endpoint was menstrual blood loss <80 mL per cycle as well as a ≥50% reduction in quantified blood loss from baseline during the final month of treatment. At 6 months, the percentage of women achieving the primary endpoint in the first trial was 84% (elagolix alone), 69% (elagolix plus add-back), and 9% (placebo). Mean changes from baseline in lumbar spine bone density were −2.95% (elagolix alone), −0.76% (elagolix plus add-back), and −0.21% (placebo). The percentage of women reporting hot flashes was 64% in the elagolix group, 20% in the elagolix plus low-dose steroid add-back group, and 9% in the placebo group. Results were similar in the second trial.¹²

The initial trials were extended to 12 months with two groups: elagolix 300 mg twice daily plus low-dose hormone add-back with 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate once daily (n = 218) or elagolix 300 mg twice daily (elagolix alone) (n = 98).¹³ Following 12 months of treatment, heavy menstrual bleeding was controlled in 88% and 89% of women treated with elagolix plus add-back and elagolix alone, respectively. Amenorrhea was reported by 65% of the women in the elagolix plus add-back group. Compared with baseline bone density, at the end of 12 months of treatment, bone mineral density in the lumbar spine was reduced by -1.5% and -4.8% in the women treated with elagolix plus add-back and elagolix alone, respectively. Compared with baseline bone density, at 1 year following completion of treatment, bone mineral density in the lumbar spine was reduced by -0.6% and -2.0% in the women treated with elagolix plus add-back and elagolix alone, respectively. Similar trends were observed in total hip and femoral neck bone density. During treatment with elagolix plus add-back, adverse effects were modest, including hot flushes (6%), night sweats (3.2%), headache (5.5%), and nausea (4.1%). Two women developed liver transaminase levels >3 times the upper limit of normal, resulting in one woman discontinuing treatment.¹³

Continue to: Contraindications to Oriahnn include known allergies...

Contraindications to Oriahnn include known allergies to the components of the medication (including the yellow dye tartrazine); high risk of arterial, venous thrombotic or thromboembolic disorders; pregnancy; known osteoporosis; current breast cancer or other hormonally-sensitive malignancies; known liver disease; and concurrent use of organic anion transporting polypeptide 1B1 inhibitors, which includes many HIV antiviral medications.¹⁴ Undiagnosed AUB is a contraindication, and all women prescribed Oriahnn should have endometrial sampling before initiating treatment. Oriahnn should not be used for more than 24 months due to the risk of irreversible bone loss.¹⁴ Systemic estrogen and progestin combinations, a component of Oriahnn, increases the risk for pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, stroke, and myocardial infarction, especially in women at increased risk for these events (such as women >35 years who smoke cigarettes and women with uncontrolled hypertension).¹⁴ In two studies there was a higher incidence of depression, depressed mood, and/or tearfulness in women taking Oriahnn (3%) compared with those taking a placebo (1%).¹⁴ The FDA recommends promptly evaluating women with depressive symptoms to determine the risks of initiating and continuing Oriahnn therapy. In two studies there was a higher risk of reported alopecia among women taking Oriahnn (3.5%) compared with placebo (1%).¹⁴

It should be noted that elagolix is approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis at a dose of 150 mg daily for 24 months or 200 mg twice daily for 6 months. The elagolix dose for the treatment of AUB caused by fibroids is 300 mg twice daily for up to 24 months, necessitating the addition of low-dose estradiol-norethindrone add-back to reduce the frequency and severity of hot flashes and minimize the loss of bone density. Norethindrone acetate also protects the endometrium from the stimulatory effect of estradiol, reducing the risk of developing endometrial hyperplasia and cancer. Oriahnn is formulated as two different capsules. A yellow and white capsule contains elagolix 300 mg plus estradiol 1 mg and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg to be taken in the morning, and a blue and white capsule contains elagolix 300 mg to be taken in the evening.

AUB caused by fibroids is a common problem in gyn practice

There are many procedural interventions that are effective in reducing AUB caused by fibroids. However, prior to the approval of Oriahnn there were no hormonal medications that were FDA approved for the long-term treatment of AUB caused by fibroids. Hence, Oriahnn represents an important advance in the hormonal treatment of AUB caused by fibroids and expands the treatment options available to our patients. ●

Uterine leiomyomata (fibroids) are the most common pelvic tumor diagnosed in women.¹ Women with symptomatic fibroids often report abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and pelvic cramping, fullness, or pain. Fibroids also may cause frequency of urination and contribute to fertility and pregnancy problems. Treatment options for the AUB caused by fibroids include, but are not limited to, hysterectomy, myomectomy, uterine artery embolization, endometrial ablation, insertion of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device, focused ultrasound surgery, radiofrequency ablation, leuprolide acetate, and elagolix plus low-dose hormone add-back (Oriahnn; AbbVie, North Chicago, Illinois).¹ Oriahnn is the most recent addition to our treatment armamentarium for fibroids and represents the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved long-term hormonal option for AUB caused by fibroids.

Gene dysregulation contributes to fibroid development

Most uterine fibroids are clonal tumors, which develop following a somatic mutation in a precursor uterine myocyte. The somatic mutation causes gene dysregulation that stimulates cell growth resulting in a benign tumor mass. The majority of fibroids contain a mutation in one of the following 6 genes: mediator complex subunit 12 (MED12), high mobility group AT-hook (HMGA2 or HMGA1), RAD51B, fumarate hydratase (FH), collagen type IV, alpha 5 chain (COL4A5), or collagen type IV alpha 6 chain (COL4A6).²

Gene dysregulation in fibroids may arise following chromothripsis of the uterine myocyte genome

Chromothripsis is a catastrophic intracellular genetic event in which one or more chromosomes are broken and reassemble in a new nucleic acid sequence, producing a derivative chromosome that contains complex genetic rearrangements.³ Chromothripsis is believed to occur frequently in uterine myocytes. It is unknown why uterine myocytes are susceptible to chromothripsis,³ or why a catastrophic intracellular event such as chromothripsis results in preferential mutations in the 6 genes that are associated with myoma formation.

Estrogen and progesterone influence fibroid size and cell activity

Although uterine fibroids are clonal tumors containing broken genes, they are also exquisitely responsive to estradiol and progesterone. Estradiol and progesterone play an important role in regulating fibroid size and function.⁴ Estrogen stimulates uterine fibroids to increase in size. In a hypoestrogenic state, uterine fibroids decrease in size. In addition, a hypoestrogenic state results in an atrophic endometrium and thereby reduces AUB. For women with uterine fibroids and AUB, a reversible hypoestrogenic state can be induced either with a parenteral GnRH-agonist analogue (leuprolide) or an oral GnRH-antagonist (elagolix). Both leuprolide and elagolix are approved for the treatment of uterine fibroids (see below).

Surprisingly, progesterone stimulates cell division in normal uterine myocytes and fibroid cells.⁵ In the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, uterine myocyte mitoses are more frequent than in the follicular phase. In addition, synthetic progestins appear to maintain fibroid size in a hypoestrogenic environment. In one randomized trial, women with uterine fibroids treated with leuprolide acetate plus a placebo pill for 24 weeks had a 51% reduction in uterine volume as measured by ultrasound.⁶ Women with uterine fibroids treated with leuprolide acetate plus the synthetic progestin, oral medroxyprogesterone acetate 20 mg daily, had only a 15% reduction in uterine volume.⁶ This finding suggests that synthetic progestins partially block the decrease in uterine volume that occurs in a hypoestrogenic state.

Further evidence that progesterone plays a role in fibroid biology is the observation that treatment of women with uterine fibroids with the antiprogestin ulipristal decreases fibroid size and reduces AUB.^7-9 Ulipristal was approved for the treatment of fibroids in many countries but not the United States. Reports of severe, life-threatening liver injury—some necessitating liver transplantation—among women using ulipristal prompted the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2020 to recommend that women stop taking ulipristal. In addition, the EMA recommended that no woman should initiate ulipristal treatment at this time.¹⁰

Continue to: Leuprolide acetate...

Leuprolide acetate

Leuprolide acetate is a peptide GnRH-agonist analogue. Initiation of leuprolide treatment stimulates gonadotropin release, but with chronic administration pituitary secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) decreases, resulting in reduced ovarian follicular activity, anovulation, and low serum concentration of estradiol and progesterone. Leuprolide treatment concomitant with iron therapy is approved by the FDA for improving red blood cell volume prior to surgery in women with fibroids, AUB, and anemia.¹¹ Among women with fibroids, AUB, and anemia, after 12 weeks of treatment, the hemoglobin concentration was ≥12 g/dL in 79% treated with leuprolide plus iron and 56% treated with iron alone.¹¹ The FDA recommends limiting preoperative leuprolide treatment to no more than 3 months. The approved leuprolide regimens are a maximum of 3 monthly injections of leuprolide 3.75 mg or a single injection of leuprolide 11.25 mg. Leuprolide treatment prior to hysterectomy surgery for uterine fibroids usually will result in a decrease in uterine size and may facilitate vaginal hysterectomy.

Elagolix plus estradiol plus norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn)

GnRH analogues cause a hypoestrogenic state resulting in adverse effects, including moderate to severe hot flashes and a reduction in bone mineral density. One approach to reducing the unwanted effects of hot flashes and decreased bone density is to combine a GnRH analogue with low-dose steroid hormone add-back therapy. Combining a GnRH analogue with low-dose steroid hormone add-back permits long-term treatment of AUB caused by fibroids, with few hot flashes and a minimal decrease in bone mineral density. The FDA recently has approved the combination of elagolix plus low-dose estradiol and norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn) for the long-term treatment of AUB caused by fibroids.

Elagolix is a nonpeptide oral GnRH antagonist that reduces pituitary secretion of LH and FSH, resulting in a decrease in ovarian follicular activity, anovulation, and low serum concentration of estradiol and progesterone. Unlike leuprolide, which causes an initial increase in LH and FSH secretion, the initiation of elagolix treatment causes an immediate and sustained reduction in LH and FSH secretion. Combining elagolix with a low dose of estradiol and norethindrone acetate reduces the side effects of hot flashes and decreased bone density. Clinical trials have reported that the combination of elagolix (300 mg) twice daily plus estradiol (1 mg) and norethindrone acetate (0.5 mg) once daily is an effective long-term treatment of AUB caused by uterine fibroids.

To study the efficacy of elagolix (alone or with estrogen-progestin add-back therapy) for the treatment of AUB caused by uterine fibroids, two identical trials were performed,¹² in which 790 women participated. The participants had a mean age of 42 years and were documented to have heavy menstrual bleeding (>80 mL blood loss per cycle) and ultrasound-diagnosed uterine fibroids. The participants were randomized to one of 3 groups:

• elagolix (300 mg twice daily) plus low-dose steroid add-back (1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate once daily),
• elagolix 300 mg twice daily with no steroid add-back (elagolix alone), or
• placebo for 6 months.¹²

Menstrual blood loss was quantified using the alkaline hematin method on collected sanitary products. The primary endpoint was menstrual blood loss <80 mL per cycle as well as a ≥50% reduction in quantified blood loss from baseline during the final month of treatment. At 6 months, the percentage of women achieving the primary endpoint in the first trial was 84% (elagolix alone), 69% (elagolix plus add-back), and 9% (placebo). Mean changes from baseline in lumbar spine bone density were −2.95% (elagolix alone), −0.76% (elagolix plus add-back), and −0.21% (placebo). The percentage of women reporting hot flashes was 64% in the elagolix group, 20% in the elagolix plus low-dose steroid add-back group, and 9% in the placebo group. Results were similar in the second trial.¹²

The initial trials were extended to 12 months with two groups: elagolix 300 mg twice daily plus low-dose hormone add-back with 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate once daily (n = 218) or elagolix 300 mg twice daily (elagolix alone) (n = 98).¹³ Following 12 months of treatment, heavy menstrual bleeding was controlled in 88% and 89% of women treated with elagolix plus add-back and elagolix alone, respectively. Amenorrhea was reported by 65% of the women in the elagolix plus add-back group. Compared with baseline bone density, at the end of 12 months of treatment, bone mineral density in the lumbar spine was reduced by -1.5% and -4.8% in the women treated with elagolix plus add-back and elagolix alone, respectively. Compared with baseline bone density, at 1 year following completion of treatment, bone mineral density in the lumbar spine was reduced by -0.6% and -2.0% in the women treated with elagolix plus add-back and elagolix alone, respectively. Similar trends were observed in total hip and femoral neck bone density. During treatment with elagolix plus add-back, adverse effects were modest, including hot flushes (6%), night sweats (3.2%), headache (5.5%), and nausea (4.1%). Two women developed liver transaminase levels >3 times the upper limit of normal, resulting in one woman discontinuing treatment.¹³

Continue to: Contraindications to Oriahnn include known allergies...

Contraindications to Oriahnn include known allergies to the components of the medication (including the yellow dye tartrazine); high risk of arterial, venous thrombotic or thromboembolic disorders; pregnancy; known osteoporosis; current breast cancer or other hormonally-sensitive malignancies; known liver disease; and concurrent use of organic anion transporting polypeptide 1B1 inhibitors, which includes many HIV antiviral medications.¹⁴ Undiagnosed AUB is a contraindication, and all women prescribed Oriahnn should have endometrial sampling before initiating treatment. Oriahnn should not be used for more than 24 months due to the risk of irreversible bone loss.¹⁴ Systemic estrogen and progestin combinations, a component of Oriahnn, increases the risk for pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, stroke, and myocardial infarction, especially in women at increased risk for these events (such as women >35 years who smoke cigarettes and women with uncontrolled hypertension).¹⁴ In two studies there was a higher incidence of depression, depressed mood, and/or tearfulness in women taking Oriahnn (3%) compared with those taking a placebo (1%).¹⁴ The FDA recommends promptly evaluating women with depressive symptoms to determine the risks of initiating and continuing Oriahnn therapy. In two studies there was a higher risk of reported alopecia among women taking Oriahnn (3.5%) compared with placebo (1%).¹⁴

It should be noted that elagolix is approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis at a dose of 150 mg daily for 24 months or 200 mg twice daily for 6 months. The elagolix dose for the treatment of AUB caused by fibroids is 300 mg twice daily for up to 24 months, necessitating the addition of low-dose estradiol-norethindrone add-back to reduce the frequency and severity of hot flashes and minimize the loss of bone density. Norethindrone acetate also protects the endometrium from the stimulatory effect of estradiol, reducing the risk of developing endometrial hyperplasia and cancer. Oriahnn is formulated as two different capsules. A yellow and white capsule contains elagolix 300 mg plus estradiol 1 mg and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg to be taken in the morning, and a blue and white capsule contains elagolix 300 mg to be taken in the evening.

AUB caused by fibroids is a common problem in gyn practice

There are many procedural interventions that are effective in reducing AUB caused by fibroids. However, prior to the approval of Oriahnn there were no hormonal medications that were FDA approved for the long-term treatment of AUB caused by fibroids. Hence, Oriahnn represents an important advance in the hormonal treatment of AUB caused by fibroids and expands the treatment options available to our patients. ●

Uterine leiomyomata (fibroids) are the most common pelvic tumor diagnosed in women.¹ Women with symptomatic fibroids often report abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and pelvic cramping, fullness, or pain. Fibroids also may cause frequency of urination and contribute to fertility and pregnancy problems. Treatment options for the AUB caused by fibroids include, but are not limited to, hysterectomy, myomectomy, uterine artery embolization, endometrial ablation, insertion of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device, focused ultrasound surgery, radiofrequency ablation, leuprolide acetate, and elagolix plus low-dose hormone add-back (Oriahnn; AbbVie, North Chicago, Illinois).¹ Oriahnn is the most recent addition to our treatment armamentarium for fibroids and represents the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved long-term hormonal option for AUB caused by fibroids.

Gene dysregulation contributes to fibroid development

Most uterine fibroids are clonal tumors, which develop following a somatic mutation in a precursor uterine myocyte. The somatic mutation causes gene dysregulation that stimulates cell growth resulting in a benign tumor mass. The majority of fibroids contain a mutation in one of the following 6 genes: mediator complex subunit 12 (MED12), high mobility group AT-hook (HMGA2 or HMGA1), RAD51B, fumarate hydratase (FH), collagen type IV, alpha 5 chain (COL4A5), or collagen type IV alpha 6 chain (COL4A6).²

Gene dysregulation in fibroids may arise following chromothripsis of the uterine myocyte genome

Chromothripsis is a catastrophic intracellular genetic event in which one or more chromosomes are broken and reassemble in a new nucleic acid sequence, producing a derivative chromosome that contains complex genetic rearrangements.³ Chromothripsis is believed to occur frequently in uterine myocytes. It is unknown why uterine myocytes are susceptible to chromothripsis,³ or why a catastrophic intracellular event such as chromothripsis results in preferential mutations in the 6 genes that are associated with myoma formation.

Estrogen and progesterone influence fibroid size and cell activity

Although uterine fibroids are clonal tumors containing broken genes, they are also exquisitely responsive to estradiol and progesterone. Estradiol and progesterone play an important role in regulating fibroid size and function.⁴ Estrogen stimulates uterine fibroids to increase in size. In a hypoestrogenic state, uterine fibroids decrease in size. In addition, a hypoestrogenic state results in an atrophic endometrium and thereby reduces AUB. For women with uterine fibroids and AUB, a reversible hypoestrogenic state can be induced either with a parenteral GnRH-agonist analogue (leuprolide) or an oral GnRH-antagonist (elagolix). Both leuprolide and elagolix are approved for the treatment of uterine fibroids (see below).

Surprisingly, progesterone stimulates cell division in normal uterine myocytes and fibroid cells.⁵ In the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, uterine myocyte mitoses are more frequent than in the follicular phase. In addition, synthetic progestins appear to maintain fibroid size in a hypoestrogenic environment. In one randomized trial, women with uterine fibroids treated with leuprolide acetate plus a placebo pill for 24 weeks had a 51% reduction in uterine volume as measured by ultrasound.⁶ Women with uterine fibroids treated with leuprolide acetate plus the synthetic progestin, oral medroxyprogesterone acetate 20 mg daily, had only a 15% reduction in uterine volume.⁶ This finding suggests that synthetic progestins partially block the decrease in uterine volume that occurs in a hypoestrogenic state.

Further evidence that progesterone plays a role in fibroid biology is the observation that treatment of women with uterine fibroids with the antiprogestin ulipristal decreases fibroid size and reduces AUB.^7-9 Ulipristal was approved for the treatment of fibroids in many countries but not the United States. Reports of severe, life-threatening liver injury—some necessitating liver transplantation—among women using ulipristal prompted the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2020 to recommend that women stop taking ulipristal. In addition, the EMA recommended that no woman should initiate ulipristal treatment at this time.¹⁰

Continue to: Leuprolide acetate...

Leuprolide acetate

Leuprolide acetate is a peptide GnRH-agonist analogue. Initiation of leuprolide treatment stimulates gonadotropin release, but with chronic administration pituitary secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) decreases, resulting in reduced ovarian follicular activity, anovulation, and low serum concentration of estradiol and progesterone. Leuprolide treatment concomitant with iron therapy is approved by the FDA for improving red blood cell volume prior to surgery in women with fibroids, AUB, and anemia.¹¹ Among women with fibroids, AUB, and anemia, after 12 weeks of treatment, the hemoglobin concentration was ≥12 g/dL in 79% treated with leuprolide plus iron and 56% treated with iron alone.¹¹ The FDA recommends limiting preoperative leuprolide treatment to no more than 3 months. The approved leuprolide regimens are a maximum of 3 monthly injections of leuprolide 3.75 mg or a single injection of leuprolide 11.25 mg. Leuprolide treatment prior to hysterectomy surgery for uterine fibroids usually will result in a decrease in uterine size and may facilitate vaginal hysterectomy.

Elagolix plus estradiol plus norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn)

GnRH analogues cause a hypoestrogenic state resulting in adverse effects, including moderate to severe hot flashes and a reduction in bone mineral density. One approach to reducing the unwanted effects of hot flashes and decreased bone density is to combine a GnRH analogue with low-dose steroid hormone add-back therapy. Combining a GnRH analogue with low-dose steroid hormone add-back permits long-term treatment of AUB caused by fibroids, with few hot flashes and a minimal decrease in bone mineral density. The FDA recently has approved the combination of elagolix plus low-dose estradiol and norethindrone acetate (Oriahnn) for the long-term treatment of AUB caused by fibroids.

Elagolix is a nonpeptide oral GnRH antagonist that reduces pituitary secretion of LH and FSH, resulting in a decrease in ovarian follicular activity, anovulation, and low serum concentration of estradiol and progesterone. Unlike leuprolide, which causes an initial increase in LH and FSH secretion, the initiation of elagolix treatment causes an immediate and sustained reduction in LH and FSH secretion. Combining elagolix with a low dose of estradiol and norethindrone acetate reduces the side effects of hot flashes and decreased bone density. Clinical trials have reported that the combination of elagolix (300 mg) twice daily plus estradiol (1 mg) and norethindrone acetate (0.5 mg) once daily is an effective long-term treatment of AUB caused by uterine fibroids.

To study the efficacy of elagolix (alone or with estrogen-progestin add-back therapy) for the treatment of AUB caused by uterine fibroids, two identical trials were performed,¹² in which 790 women participated. The participants had a mean age of 42 years and were documented to have heavy menstrual bleeding (>80 mL blood loss per cycle) and ultrasound-diagnosed uterine fibroids. The participants were randomized to one of 3 groups:

• elagolix (300 mg twice daily) plus low-dose steroid add-back (1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate once daily),
• elagolix 300 mg twice daily with no steroid add-back (elagolix alone), or
• placebo for 6 months.¹²

Menstrual blood loss was quantified using the alkaline hematin method on collected sanitary products. The primary endpoint was menstrual blood loss <80 mL per cycle as well as a ≥50% reduction in quantified blood loss from baseline during the final month of treatment. At 6 months, the percentage of women achieving the primary endpoint in the first trial was 84% (elagolix alone), 69% (elagolix plus add-back), and 9% (placebo). Mean changes from baseline in lumbar spine bone density were −2.95% (elagolix alone), −0.76% (elagolix plus add-back), and −0.21% (placebo). The percentage of women reporting hot flashes was 64% in the elagolix group, 20% in the elagolix plus low-dose steroid add-back group, and 9% in the placebo group. Results were similar in the second trial.¹²

The initial trials were extended to 12 months with two groups: elagolix 300 mg twice daily plus low-dose hormone add-back with 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate once daily (n = 218) or elagolix 300 mg twice daily (elagolix alone) (n = 98).¹³ Following 12 months of treatment, heavy menstrual bleeding was controlled in 88% and 89% of women treated with elagolix plus add-back and elagolix alone, respectively. Amenorrhea was reported by 65% of the women in the elagolix plus add-back group. Compared with baseline bone density, at the end of 12 months of treatment, bone mineral density in the lumbar spine was reduced by -1.5% and -4.8% in the women treated with elagolix plus add-back and elagolix alone, respectively. Compared with baseline bone density, at 1 year following completion of treatment, bone mineral density in the lumbar spine was reduced by -0.6% and -2.0% in the women treated with elagolix plus add-back and elagolix alone, respectively. Similar trends were observed in total hip and femoral neck bone density. During treatment with elagolix plus add-back, adverse effects were modest, including hot flushes (6%), night sweats (3.2%), headache (5.5%), and nausea (4.1%). Two women developed liver transaminase levels >3 times the upper limit of normal, resulting in one woman discontinuing treatment.¹³

Continue to: Contraindications to Oriahnn include known allergies...

Contraindications to Oriahnn include known allergies to the components of the medication (including the yellow dye tartrazine); high risk of arterial, venous thrombotic or thromboembolic disorders; pregnancy; known osteoporosis; current breast cancer or other hormonally-sensitive malignancies; known liver disease; and concurrent use of organic anion transporting polypeptide 1B1 inhibitors, which includes many HIV antiviral medications.¹⁴ Undiagnosed AUB is a contraindication, and all women prescribed Oriahnn should have endometrial sampling before initiating treatment. Oriahnn should not be used for more than 24 months due to the risk of irreversible bone loss.¹⁴ Systemic estrogen and progestin combinations, a component of Oriahnn, increases the risk for pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, stroke, and myocardial infarction, especially in women at increased risk for these events (such as women >35 years who smoke cigarettes and women with uncontrolled hypertension).¹⁴ In two studies there was a higher incidence of depression, depressed mood, and/or tearfulness in women taking Oriahnn (3%) compared with those taking a placebo (1%).¹⁴ The FDA recommends promptly evaluating women with depressive symptoms to determine the risks of initiating and continuing Oriahnn therapy. In two studies there was a higher risk of reported alopecia among women taking Oriahnn (3.5%) compared with placebo (1%).¹⁴

It should be noted that elagolix is approved for the treatment of pelvic pain caused by endometriosis at a dose of 150 mg daily for 24 months or 200 mg twice daily for 6 months. The elagolix dose for the treatment of AUB caused by fibroids is 300 mg twice daily for up to 24 months, necessitating the addition of low-dose estradiol-norethindrone add-back to reduce the frequency and severity of hot flashes and minimize the loss of bone density. Norethindrone acetate also protects the endometrium from the stimulatory effect of estradiol, reducing the risk of developing endometrial hyperplasia and cancer. Oriahnn is formulated as two different capsules. A yellow and white capsule contains elagolix 300 mg plus estradiol 1 mg and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg to be taken in the morning, and a blue and white capsule contains elagolix 300 mg to be taken in the evening.

AUB caused by fibroids is a common problem in gyn practice

There are many procedural interventions that are effective in reducing AUB caused by fibroids. However, prior to the approval of Oriahnn there were no hormonal medications that were FDA approved for the long-term treatment of AUB caused by fibroids. Hence, Oriahnn represents an important advance in the hormonal treatment of AUB caused by fibroids and expands the treatment options available to our patients. ●

Simon JA, Al-Hendy A, Archer DF, et al. Elagolix treatment for up to 12 months in women with heavy menstrual bleeding and uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:1313-1326.

Expert Commentary

Uterine fibroids are common (occurring in up to 80% of reproductive-age women),^1,2 and often associated with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). There are surgical and medical options, but typically medical options are used for short periods of time. Elagolix with hormonal add-back therapy was recently approved (May 29, 2020) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of HMB in women with uterine fibroids for up to 24 months.

Elagolix is an oral, nonpeptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist that results in a dose-dependent reduction of gonadotropins and ovarian sex hormones. There are now 2 approved products containing elagolix, with different indications:

• Orilissa. Elagolix was approved in 2018 by the FDA for moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis. For that indication there are 2 dose options of elagolix (150 mg for up to 2 years and 200 mg for up to 6 months) and there is no hormonal add-back therapy.
• Oriahnn. Elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy was approved in 2020 for HMB associated with uterine fibroids for up to 24 months. The total daily dose of elagolix is 600 mg (elagolix 300 mg in the morning with estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg and then in the evening elagolix 300 mg and no hormonal add-back).

This new class of drug, GnRH antagonist, is an important one for women’s health, and emerging science will continue to expand its potential uses, such as in reproductive health, as well as long-term efficacy and safety. The difference in daily dose of elagolix for endometriosis (150 mg for 24 months) compared with HMB associated with fibroids (600 mg for 24 months) is why the hormonal add-back therapy is important and allows for protection of bone density.

This is an important manuscript because it highlights a medical option for women with HMB associated with fibroids, which can be used for a long period of time. Further, the improvement in bleeding is both impressive and maintained in the extension study. Approximately 90% of women show improvement in their menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids.

The question of what to do after 24 months of therapy with elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy is an important one, but providers should recognize that the limiting factor with this elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy is bone mineral density (BMD). We will only learn more and more moving forward if this is a clinically meaningful reason for stopping treatment at 24 months. The FDA takes a strict view of safety, and providers must weigh this with the benefit of therapy.

One other highlight between the 2 approved medications is that Orilissa does not have a black box warning, given that there is no hormonal add-back therapy. Oriahnn does have a warning, regarding thromboembolic disorders and vascular events:

• Estrogen and progestin combinations, including Oriahnn, increase the risk of thrombotic or thromboembolic disorders, especially in women at increased risk for these events.
• Oriahnn is contraindicated in women with current or a history of thrombotic or thromboembolic disorders and in women at increased risk for these events, including women over 35 years of age who smoke or women with uncontrolled hypertension.

Continue to: Details about the study...

Details about the study

The study by Simon et al is an extension study (UF-EXTEND), in that women could participate if they had completed 1 of the 2 pivotal studies on elagolix. The pivotal studies (Elaris UF1 and UF2) were both randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies with up to 6 months of therapy; for UF-EXTEND, however, participants were randomly assigned to either combined elagolix and hormone replacement therapy or elagolix alone for an additional 6 months of therapy. Although it was known that all participants would receive elagolix in UF-EXTEND, those who received hormonal add-back therapy were blinded. All women were then followed up for an additional 12 months after treatment ended.

The efficacy of elagolix was measured by the objective alkaline hematin method for menstrual blood loss with the a priori coprimary endpoints. The elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy group showed objective improvement in menstrual blood loss at 12 months in 87.9% of women in the extension study (89.4% in the elagolix alone group). This compares with 72.2% improvement at 6 months of treatment in the UF1 and UF2 studies for those taking elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy. These findings illustrate maintenance of the efficacy seen within the 6-month pivotal studies using elagolix over an extended amount of time.

The safety of elagolix also was demonstrated in UF-EXTEND. The 3 most common adverse events were similar to those found in Elaris UF1 and UF2 and included hot flushes, headache, and nausea. In the elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy group during the extension study, the percentage with hot flushes was 7%, headache 6%, and nausea 4%. These are small percentages, which is encouraging for providers and women with HMB associated with fibroids.

Effects on bone density

Bone density was evaluated at baseline in the UF1 and UF2 studies, through treatment, and then 12 months after the extended treatment was stopped. The hormonal add-back therapy of estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg significantly protected bone density. Some women did not have a decrease in bone density, but for those who did the average was less than 5% for the lumbar spine. The lumbar spine is considered the most reactive, so this illustrates the safety that combined therapy offers women with HMB and fibroids.

The lumbar spine is considered the most reactive, so this site is often used as the main focus with BMD studies. As Simon et al show, the lumbar spine mean BMD percent change from baseline for the elagolix with add-back therapy was -1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.9 to -1.0) in women who received up to 12 months of treatment at month 6 in the extension study. After stopping elagolix with add-back therapy, at 6 months the elagolix with add-back therapy had a Z-score of -0.6% (95% CI, -1.1 to -0.1). This shows a trend toward baseline, or a recovery within a short time from stopping medication.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include its overall design; efficacy endpoints, which were all established a priori; the fact that measurement of menstrual blood loss was done with the objective alkaline hematin method; and the statistical analysis, which is thorough and well presented. This extension study allowed further evaluation of efficacy and safety for elagolix. Although the authors point out that there may be some selection bias in an extension study, the fact that so many women elected to continue into the extended study is a positive reflection of the treatment.

As providers learn of new therapies for management of HMB associated with fibroids, it is important to consider who will benefit the most. In my opinion, any woman with heavy periods associated with fibroids could be a candidate for elagolix with add-back therapy. This treatment is highly effective, well tolerated, and safe. My approach to management includes educating a woman on all potential therapies and this new option of elagolix and add-back therapy is an important one. The decision for an individual woman on how to manage heavy periods associated with fibroids should consider her contraceptive needs, medical issues, and the risk and benefit of individual therapies. ●

Simon JA, Al-Hendy A, Archer DF, et al. Elagolix treatment for up to 12 months in women with heavy menstrual bleeding and uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:1313-1326.

Expert Commentary

Uterine fibroids are common (occurring in up to 80% of reproductive-age women),^1,2 and often associated with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). There are surgical and medical options, but typically medical options are used for short periods of time. Elagolix with hormonal add-back therapy was recently approved (May 29, 2020) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of HMB in women with uterine fibroids for up to 24 months.

Elagolix is an oral, nonpeptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist that results in a dose-dependent reduction of gonadotropins and ovarian sex hormones. There are now 2 approved products containing elagolix, with different indications:

• Orilissa. Elagolix was approved in 2018 by the FDA for moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis. For that indication there are 2 dose options of elagolix (150 mg for up to 2 years and 200 mg for up to 6 months) and there is no hormonal add-back therapy.
• Oriahnn. Elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy was approved in 2020 for HMB associated with uterine fibroids for up to 24 months. The total daily dose of elagolix is 600 mg (elagolix 300 mg in the morning with estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg and then in the evening elagolix 300 mg and no hormonal add-back).

This new class of drug, GnRH antagonist, is an important one for women’s health, and emerging science will continue to expand its potential uses, such as in reproductive health, as well as long-term efficacy and safety. The difference in daily dose of elagolix for endometriosis (150 mg for 24 months) compared with HMB associated with fibroids (600 mg for 24 months) is why the hormonal add-back therapy is important and allows for protection of bone density.

This is an important manuscript because it highlights a medical option for women with HMB associated with fibroids, which can be used for a long period of time. Further, the improvement in bleeding is both impressive and maintained in the extension study. Approximately 90% of women show improvement in their menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids.

The question of what to do after 24 months of therapy with elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy is an important one, but providers should recognize that the limiting factor with this elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy is bone mineral density (BMD). We will only learn more and more moving forward if this is a clinically meaningful reason for stopping treatment at 24 months. The FDA takes a strict view of safety, and providers must weigh this with the benefit of therapy.

One other highlight between the 2 approved medications is that Orilissa does not have a black box warning, given that there is no hormonal add-back therapy. Oriahnn does have a warning, regarding thromboembolic disorders and vascular events:

• Estrogen and progestin combinations, including Oriahnn, increase the risk of thrombotic or thromboembolic disorders, especially in women at increased risk for these events.
• Oriahnn is contraindicated in women with current or a history of thrombotic or thromboembolic disorders and in women at increased risk for these events, including women over 35 years of age who smoke or women with uncontrolled hypertension.

Continue to: Details about the study...

Details about the study

The study by Simon et al is an extension study (UF-EXTEND), in that women could participate if they had completed 1 of the 2 pivotal studies on elagolix. The pivotal studies (Elaris UF1 and UF2) were both randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies with up to 6 months of therapy; for UF-EXTEND, however, participants were randomly assigned to either combined elagolix and hormone replacement therapy or elagolix alone for an additional 6 months of therapy. Although it was known that all participants would receive elagolix in UF-EXTEND, those who received hormonal add-back therapy were blinded. All women were then followed up for an additional 12 months after treatment ended.

The efficacy of elagolix was measured by the objective alkaline hematin method for menstrual blood loss with the a priori coprimary endpoints. The elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy group showed objective improvement in menstrual blood loss at 12 months in 87.9% of women in the extension study (89.4% in the elagolix alone group). This compares with 72.2% improvement at 6 months of treatment in the UF1 and UF2 studies for those taking elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy. These findings illustrate maintenance of the efficacy seen within the 6-month pivotal studies using elagolix over an extended amount of time.

The safety of elagolix also was demonstrated in UF-EXTEND. The 3 most common adverse events were similar to those found in Elaris UF1 and UF2 and included hot flushes, headache, and nausea. In the elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy group during the extension study, the percentage with hot flushes was 7%, headache 6%, and nausea 4%. These are small percentages, which is encouraging for providers and women with HMB associated with fibroids.

Effects on bone density

Bone density was evaluated at baseline in the UF1 and UF2 studies, through treatment, and then 12 months after the extended treatment was stopped. The hormonal add-back therapy of estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg significantly protected bone density. Some women did not have a decrease in bone density, but for those who did the average was less than 5% for the lumbar spine. The lumbar spine is considered the most reactive, so this illustrates the safety that combined therapy offers women with HMB and fibroids.

The lumbar spine is considered the most reactive, so this site is often used as the main focus with BMD studies. As Simon et al show, the lumbar spine mean BMD percent change from baseline for the elagolix with add-back therapy was -1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.9 to -1.0) in women who received up to 12 months of treatment at month 6 in the extension study. After stopping elagolix with add-back therapy, at 6 months the elagolix with add-back therapy had a Z-score of -0.6% (95% CI, -1.1 to -0.1). This shows a trend toward baseline, or a recovery within a short time from stopping medication.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include its overall design; efficacy endpoints, which were all established a priori; the fact that measurement of menstrual blood loss was done with the objective alkaline hematin method; and the statistical analysis, which is thorough and well presented. This extension study allowed further evaluation of efficacy and safety for elagolix. Although the authors point out that there may be some selection bias in an extension study, the fact that so many women elected to continue into the extended study is a positive reflection of the treatment.

As providers learn of new therapies for management of HMB associated with fibroids, it is important to consider who will benefit the most. In my opinion, any woman with heavy periods associated with fibroids could be a candidate for elagolix with add-back therapy. This treatment is highly effective, well tolerated, and safe. My approach to management includes educating a woman on all potential therapies and this new option of elagolix and add-back therapy is an important one. The decision for an individual woman on how to manage heavy periods associated with fibroids should consider her contraceptive needs, medical issues, and the risk and benefit of individual therapies. ●

Simon JA, Al-Hendy A, Archer DF, et al. Elagolix treatment for up to 12 months in women with heavy menstrual bleeding and uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:1313-1326.

Expert Commentary

Uterine fibroids are common (occurring in up to 80% of reproductive-age women),^1,2 and often associated with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). There are surgical and medical options, but typically medical options are used for short periods of time. Elagolix with hormonal add-back therapy was recently approved (May 29, 2020) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of HMB in women with uterine fibroids for up to 24 months.

Elagolix is an oral, nonpeptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist that results in a dose-dependent reduction of gonadotropins and ovarian sex hormones. There are now 2 approved products containing elagolix, with different indications:

• Orilissa. Elagolix was approved in 2018 by the FDA for moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis. For that indication there are 2 dose options of elagolix (150 mg for up to 2 years and 200 mg for up to 6 months) and there is no hormonal add-back therapy.
• Oriahnn. Elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy was approved in 2020 for HMB associated with uterine fibroids for up to 24 months. The total daily dose of elagolix is 600 mg (elagolix 300 mg in the morning with estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg and then in the evening elagolix 300 mg and no hormonal add-back).

This new class of drug, GnRH antagonist, is an important one for women’s health, and emerging science will continue to expand its potential uses, such as in reproductive health, as well as long-term efficacy and safety. The difference in daily dose of elagolix for endometriosis (150 mg for 24 months) compared with HMB associated with fibroids (600 mg for 24 months) is why the hormonal add-back therapy is important and allows for protection of bone density.

This is an important manuscript because it highlights a medical option for women with HMB associated with fibroids, which can be used for a long period of time. Further, the improvement in bleeding is both impressive and maintained in the extension study. Approximately 90% of women show improvement in their menstrual bleeding associated with fibroids.

The question of what to do after 24 months of therapy with elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy is an important one, but providers should recognize that the limiting factor with this elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy is bone mineral density (BMD). We will only learn more and more moving forward if this is a clinically meaningful reason for stopping treatment at 24 months. The FDA takes a strict view of safety, and providers must weigh this with the benefit of therapy.

One other highlight between the 2 approved medications is that Orilissa does not have a black box warning, given that there is no hormonal add-back therapy. Oriahnn does have a warning, regarding thromboembolic disorders and vascular events:

• Estrogen and progestin combinations, including Oriahnn, increase the risk of thrombotic or thromboembolic disorders, especially in women at increased risk for these events.
• Oriahnn is contraindicated in women with current or a history of thrombotic or thromboembolic disorders and in women at increased risk for these events, including women over 35 years of age who smoke or women with uncontrolled hypertension.

Continue to: Details about the study...

Details about the study

The study by Simon et al is an extension study (UF-EXTEND), in that women could participate if they had completed 1 of the 2 pivotal studies on elagolix. The pivotal studies (Elaris UF1 and UF2) were both randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies with up to 6 months of therapy; for UF-EXTEND, however, participants were randomly assigned to either combined elagolix and hormone replacement therapy or elagolix alone for an additional 6 months of therapy. Although it was known that all participants would receive elagolix in UF-EXTEND, those who received hormonal add-back therapy were blinded. All women were then followed up for an additional 12 months after treatment ended.

The efficacy of elagolix was measured by the objective alkaline hematin method for menstrual blood loss with the a priori coprimary endpoints. The elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy group showed objective improvement in menstrual blood loss at 12 months in 87.9% of women in the extension study (89.4% in the elagolix alone group). This compares with 72.2% improvement at 6 months of treatment in the UF1 and UF2 studies for those taking elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy. These findings illustrate maintenance of the efficacy seen within the 6-month pivotal studies using elagolix over an extended amount of time.

The safety of elagolix also was demonstrated in UF-EXTEND. The 3 most common adverse events were similar to those found in Elaris UF1 and UF2 and included hot flushes, headache, and nausea. In the elagolix and hormonal add-back therapy group during the extension study, the percentage with hot flushes was 7%, headache 6%, and nausea 4%. These are small percentages, which is encouraging for providers and women with HMB associated with fibroids.

Effects on bone density

Bone density was evaluated at baseline in the UF1 and UF2 studies, through treatment, and then 12 months after the extended treatment was stopped. The hormonal add-back therapy of estradiol 1 mg/norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg significantly protected bone density. Some women did not have a decrease in bone density, but for those who did the average was less than 5% for the lumbar spine. The lumbar spine is considered the most reactive, so this illustrates the safety that combined therapy offers women with HMB and fibroids.

The lumbar spine is considered the most reactive, so this site is often used as the main focus with BMD studies. As Simon et al show, the lumbar spine mean BMD percent change from baseline for the elagolix with add-back therapy was -1.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.9 to -1.0) in women who received up to 12 months of treatment at month 6 in the extension study. After stopping elagolix with add-back therapy, at 6 months the elagolix with add-back therapy had a Z-score of -0.6% (95% CI, -1.1 to -0.1). This shows a trend toward baseline, or a recovery within a short time from stopping medication.

Continue to: Study strengths and limitations...

Study strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include its overall design; efficacy endpoints, which were all established a priori; the fact that measurement of menstrual blood loss was done with the objective alkaline hematin method; and the statistical analysis, which is thorough and well presented. This extension study allowed further evaluation of efficacy and safety for elagolix. Although the authors point out that there may be some selection bias in an extension study, the fact that so many women elected to continue into the extended study is a positive reflection of the treatment.

As providers learn of new therapies for management of HMB associated with fibroids, it is important to consider who will benefit the most. In my opinion, any woman with heavy periods associated with fibroids could be a candidate for elagolix with add-back therapy. This treatment is highly effective, well tolerated, and safe. My approach to management includes educating a woman on all potential therapies and this new option of elagolix and add-back therapy is an important one. The decision for an individual woman on how to manage heavy periods associated with fibroids should consider her contraceptive needs, medical issues, and the risk and benefit of individual therapies. ●

Schlaff WD, Ackerman RT, Al-Hendy A, et al. Elagolix for heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:328-340.

Expert Commentary

Any women’s health care provider is extremely aware of how common uterine fibroids (leiomyomas) are in reproductive-aged women. Bleeding associated with such fibroids is a common source of medical morbidity and reduced quality of life for many patients. The mainstay treatment approach for such patients has been surgical, which over time has become minimally invasive. Finding a nonsurgical treatment for patients with fibroid-associated HMB is of huge importance. The recent failure of the selective progesterone receptor modulator ulipristal acetate to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was a significant setback to finding an excellent option for medical management. A gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist like elagolix could become an incredibly important “arrow in the quiver” of women’s health clinicians.

Details about elagolix

As mentioned, elagolix was FDA approved in 2-dose regimens for the treatment of dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, and dyspareunia associated with endometriosis. One would expect that such a GnRH antagonist would reduce or eliminate HMB in patients with fibroids, although formal study had never been undertaken. Previous studies of elagolix had shown the most common adverse reaction to be vasomotor symptoms—hot flashes and night sweats. In addition, the drug shows a dose-dependent decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), although its effect on long-term bone health and future fracture risk is unknown.¹

Study specifics. The current study by Schlaff and colleagues was performed including 3 arms: a placebo arm, an elagolix 300 mg twice daily arm, and a third arm that received elagolix 300 mg twice daily and hormonal “add-back” therapy in the form of estradiol 1 mg and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg daily. The authors actually report on two phase 3 six-month trials that were identical, double-blind, and randomized in nature. Both trials involved approximately 400 women. About 70% of the study participants overall were black, and the average age was approximately 42 years (range, 18 to 51). At baseline, BMD scores were mostly in the normal range. HMB for inclusion was defined as a volume of more than 80 mL per month.

The primary end point was menstrual blood loss volume less than 80 mL in the final month and at least a 50% reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline to the final month. In the placebo group, only 9% and 10%, respectively, met these criteria.

Continue to: Results...

Results. In the first study group, 84% of those receiving elagolix alone achieved the primary end point, while the group that received elagolix plus add-back therapy had 69% success.

In the second study, both the elagolix group and the add-back group showed that 77% of patients met the primary end point criteria.

The incidences of hot flashes in the elagolix-alone groups were 64% and 43%, respectively, while with add-back therapy, they were 20% in both trials. In the placebo groups, 9% and 4% of participants reported hot flashes. At 6 months, the elagolix-only groups in both trials lost more BMD than the placebo groups, while BMD loss in both add-back groups was not statistically significant from the placebo groups.

Study strengths

Schlaff and colleagues conducted a very well-designed study. The two phase 3 clinical trials in preparation for drug approval were thorough and well reported. The authors are to be commended for including nearly 70% black women as study participants, since this is a racial group known to be affected by HMB resulting from fibroids.

Another strength was the addition of add-back therapy to the doses of elagolix. Concerns about bone loss from a health perspective and vasomotor symptoms from a quality-of-life perspective are not insignificant with elagolix-alone treatment, and proof that add-back therapy significantly diminishes or attenuates the efficacy of this entity is extremely important.

Schlaff WD, Ackerman RT, Al-Hendy A, et al. Elagolix for heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:328-340.

Expert Commentary

Any women’s health care provider is extremely aware of how common uterine fibroids (leiomyomas) are in reproductive-aged women. Bleeding associated with such fibroids is a common source of medical morbidity and reduced quality of life for many patients. The mainstay treatment approach for such patients has been surgical, which over time has become minimally invasive. Finding a nonsurgical treatment for patients with fibroid-associated HMB is of huge importance. The recent failure of the selective progesterone receptor modulator ulipristal acetate to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was a significant setback to finding an excellent option for medical management. A gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist like elagolix could become an incredibly important “arrow in the quiver” of women’s health clinicians.

Details about elagolix

As mentioned, elagolix was FDA approved in 2-dose regimens for the treatment of dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, and dyspareunia associated with endometriosis. One would expect that such a GnRH antagonist would reduce or eliminate HMB in patients with fibroids, although formal study had never been undertaken. Previous studies of elagolix had shown the most common adverse reaction to be vasomotor symptoms—hot flashes and night sweats. In addition, the drug shows a dose-dependent decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), although its effect on long-term bone health and future fracture risk is unknown.¹

Study specifics. The current study by Schlaff and colleagues was performed including 3 arms: a placebo arm, an elagolix 300 mg twice daily arm, and a third arm that received elagolix 300 mg twice daily and hormonal “add-back” therapy in the form of estradiol 1 mg and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg daily. The authors actually report on two phase 3 six-month trials that were identical, double-blind, and randomized in nature. Both trials involved approximately 400 women. About 70% of the study participants overall were black, and the average age was approximately 42 years (range, 18 to 51). At baseline, BMD scores were mostly in the normal range. HMB for inclusion was defined as a volume of more than 80 mL per month.

The primary end point was menstrual blood loss volume less than 80 mL in the final month and at least a 50% reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline to the final month. In the placebo group, only 9% and 10%, respectively, met these criteria.

Continue to: Results...

Results. In the first study group, 84% of those receiving elagolix alone achieved the primary end point, while the group that received elagolix plus add-back therapy had 69% success.

In the second study, both the elagolix group and the add-back group showed that 77% of patients met the primary end point criteria.

The incidences of hot flashes in the elagolix-alone groups were 64% and 43%, respectively, while with add-back therapy, they were 20% in both trials. In the placebo groups, 9% and 4% of participants reported hot flashes. At 6 months, the elagolix-only groups in both trials lost more BMD than the placebo groups, while BMD loss in both add-back groups was not statistically significant from the placebo groups.

Study strengths

Schlaff and colleagues conducted a very well-designed study. The two phase 3 clinical trials in preparation for drug approval were thorough and well reported. The authors are to be commended for including nearly 70% black women as study participants, since this is a racial group known to be affected by HMB resulting from fibroids.

Another strength was the addition of add-back therapy to the doses of elagolix. Concerns about bone loss from a health perspective and vasomotor symptoms from a quality-of-life perspective are not insignificant with elagolix-alone treatment, and proof that add-back therapy significantly diminishes or attenuates the efficacy of this entity is extremely important.

Schlaff WD, Ackerman RT, Al-Hendy A, et al. Elagolix for heavy menstrual bleeding in women with uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:328-340.

Expert Commentary

Any women’s health care provider is extremely aware of how common uterine fibroids (leiomyomas) are in reproductive-aged women. Bleeding associated with such fibroids is a common source of medical morbidity and reduced quality of life for many patients. The mainstay treatment approach for such patients has been surgical, which over time has become minimally invasive. Finding a nonsurgical treatment for patients with fibroid-associated HMB is of huge importance. The recent failure of the selective progesterone receptor modulator ulipristal acetate to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was a significant setback to finding an excellent option for medical management. A gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist like elagolix could become an incredibly important “arrow in the quiver” of women’s health clinicians.

Details about elagolix

As mentioned, elagolix was FDA approved in 2-dose regimens for the treatment of dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, and dyspareunia associated with endometriosis. One would expect that such a GnRH antagonist would reduce or eliminate HMB in patients with fibroids, although formal study had never been undertaken. Previous studies of elagolix had shown the most common adverse reaction to be vasomotor symptoms—hot flashes and night sweats. In addition, the drug shows a dose-dependent decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), although its effect on long-term bone health and future fracture risk is unknown.¹

Study specifics. The current study by Schlaff and colleagues was performed including 3 arms: a placebo arm, an elagolix 300 mg twice daily arm, and a third arm that received elagolix 300 mg twice daily and hormonal “add-back” therapy in the form of estradiol 1 mg and norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg daily. The authors actually report on two phase 3 six-month trials that were identical, double-blind, and randomized in nature. Both trials involved approximately 400 women. About 70% of the study participants overall were black, and the average age was approximately 42 years (range, 18 to 51). At baseline, BMD scores were mostly in the normal range. HMB for inclusion was defined as a volume of more than 80 mL per month.

The primary end point was menstrual blood loss volume less than 80 mL in the final month and at least a 50% reduction in menstrual blood loss from baseline to the final month. In the placebo group, only 9% and 10%, respectively, met these criteria.

Continue to: Results...

Results. In the first study group, 84% of those receiving elagolix alone achieved the primary end point, while the group that received elagolix plus add-back therapy had 69% success.

In the second study, both the elagolix group and the add-back group showed that 77% of patients met the primary end point criteria.

The incidences of hot flashes in the elagolix-alone groups were 64% and 43%, respectively, while with add-back therapy, they were 20% in both trials. In the placebo groups, 9% and 4% of participants reported hot flashes. At 6 months, the elagolix-only groups in both trials lost more BMD than the placebo groups, while BMD loss in both add-back groups was not statistically significant from the placebo groups.

Study strengths

Schlaff and colleagues conducted a very well-designed study. The two phase 3 clinical trials in preparation for drug approval were thorough and well reported. The authors are to be commended for including nearly 70% black women as study participants, since this is a racial group known to be affected by HMB resulting from fibroids.

Another strength was the addition of add-back therapy to the doses of elagolix. Concerns about bone loss from a health perspective and vasomotor symptoms from a quality-of-life perspective are not insignificant with elagolix-alone treatment, and proof that add-back therapy significantly diminishes or attenuates the efficacy of this entity is extremely important.

NEW SACRAL NEUROMODULATION DEVICE

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.axonics.com/

CERVICAL SEAL FOR HYSTEROSCOPIC DEVICES

For more information, visit: https://gynsurgicalsolutions.com/product/omni-lok/

UNIVERSAL CYSTOSCOPY SIMPLIFIED

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://cystosure.com/

NEXT FRONTIER IN VACCINE IMMUNIZATION

Globally, there are 410,000 cases of GBS every year. GBS is most common in newborns; women who are carriers of the GBS bacteria may pass it on to their newborns during labor and birth. An estimated 10% to 30% of pregnant women carry the GBS bacteria. The disease can manifest as sepsis, pneumonia, and meningitis, with potentially fatal outcomes for some. A maternal vaccine may prevent 231,000 infant and maternal GBS cases, says Pfizer.

According to Pfizer, RSV causes more hospitalizations each year than influenza among young children, with an estimated 33 million cases globally each year in children less than age 5 years.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.pfizer.com/

NEW SACRAL NEUROMODULATION DEVICE

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.axonics.com/

CERVICAL SEAL FOR HYSTEROSCOPIC DEVICES

For more information, visit: https://gynsurgicalsolutions.com/product/omni-lok/

UNIVERSAL CYSTOSCOPY SIMPLIFIED

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://cystosure.com/

NEXT FRONTIER IN VACCINE IMMUNIZATION

Globally, there are 410,000 cases of GBS every year. GBS is most common in newborns; women who are carriers of the GBS bacteria may pass it on to their newborns during labor and birth. An estimated 10% to 30% of pregnant women carry the GBS bacteria. The disease can manifest as sepsis, pneumonia, and meningitis, with potentially fatal outcomes for some. A maternal vaccine may prevent 231,000 infant and maternal GBS cases, says Pfizer.

According to Pfizer, RSV causes more hospitalizations each year than influenza among young children, with an estimated 33 million cases globally each year in children less than age 5 years.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.pfizer.com/

NEW SACRAL NEUROMODULATION DEVICE

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.axonics.com/

CERVICAL SEAL FOR HYSTEROSCOPIC DEVICES

For more information, visit: https://gynsurgicalsolutions.com/product/omni-lok/

UNIVERSAL CYSTOSCOPY SIMPLIFIED

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://cystosure.com/

NEXT FRONTIER IN VACCINE IMMUNIZATION

Globally, there are 410,000 cases of GBS every year. GBS is most common in newborns; women who are carriers of the GBS bacteria may pass it on to their newborns during labor and birth. An estimated 10% to 30% of pregnant women carry the GBS bacteria. The disease can manifest as sepsis, pneumonia, and meningitis, with potentially fatal outcomes for some. A maternal vaccine may prevent 231,000 infant and maternal GBS cases, says Pfizer.

According to Pfizer, RSV causes more hospitalizations each year than influenza among young children, with an estimated 33 million cases globally each year in children less than age 5 years.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.pfizer.com/

Whether or not women experience symptoms from uterine fibroid(s) can be dependent on a fibroid’s size and location. Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is the most common symptom resulting from fibroids, and it occurs in up to one-third of women with fibroids. For fibroids that are large (>10 cm), “bulk” symptoms may occur, including pelvic pressure, urinary urgency or frequency, incontinence, constipation, abdominal protrusion, etc.¹

Elagolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, was US Food and Drug Administration–approved in 2018 to treat moderate to severe pain caused by endometriosis. ² Elagolix is being evaluated in 2 phase 3 randomized, double-blind trials for the additional treatment of HMB associated with uterine fibroids. The results of these studies were presented at the 2019 AAGL meeting on November 12, in Vancouver, Canada.
 

Phase 3 study details

Premenopausal women aged 18 to 51 years were included in the Elaris UF-1 and UF-2 studies if they had HMB (defined using the alkaline hematin methodology as menstrual blood loss [MBL] >80 mL/cycle) and uterine fibroids as confirmed through ultrasound. Because elagolix suppresses estrogen and progesterone, treatment results in dose- and duration-dependent decreases in bone mineral density (BMD),² and add-back therapy can lessen these adverse effects. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned 1:1:2 to placebo, elagolix 300 mg twice daily, or elagolix 300 mg twice daily with add-back therapy (1 mg estradiol/0.5 mg norethidrone acetate [E2/NETA]) once daily. Uterine volume and size and location of uterine fibroid(s) were assessed by ultrasound. Subgroups were defined by baseline FIGO categories, grouped FIGO 0-3, FIGO 4, or FIGO 5-8.³

Over the 6-month studies, 72.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.65–76.73) of the 395 women who received elagolix plus E2/NETA achieved < 80 mL MBL during the final month and ≥ 50% MBL reduction from baseline to the final month. When stratified by FIGO classification, the results were similar for all subgroups: FIGO 0-3, 77.7% (95% CI, 67.21–80.85). Similar results were seen in women with a primary fibroid volume of either greater or less than 36.2 cm³ (median).³



The most frequently reported adverse events among women taking elagolix plus E2/NETA were hot flushes, night sweats, nausea, and headache. Changes in BMD among these women were not significant compared with women taking placebo.³

The Elaris UF-1 and UF-2 studies are funded by AbbVie Inc.

Whether or not women experience symptoms from uterine fibroid(s) can be dependent on a fibroid’s size and location. Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is the most common symptom resulting from fibroids, and it occurs in up to one-third of women with fibroids. For fibroids that are large (>10 cm), “bulk” symptoms may occur, including pelvic pressure, urinary urgency or frequency, incontinence, constipation, abdominal protrusion, etc.¹

Elagolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, was US Food and Drug Administration–approved in 2018 to treat moderate to severe pain caused by endometriosis. ² Elagolix is being evaluated in 2 phase 3 randomized, double-blind trials for the additional treatment of HMB associated with uterine fibroids. The results of these studies were presented at the 2019 AAGL meeting on November 12, in Vancouver, Canada.
 

Phase 3 study details

Premenopausal women aged 18 to 51 years were included in the Elaris UF-1 and UF-2 studies if they had HMB (defined using the alkaline hematin methodology as menstrual blood loss [MBL] >80 mL/cycle) and uterine fibroids as confirmed through ultrasound. Because elagolix suppresses estrogen and progesterone, treatment results in dose- and duration-dependent decreases in bone mineral density (BMD),² and add-back therapy can lessen these adverse effects. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned 1:1:2 to placebo, elagolix 300 mg twice daily, or elagolix 300 mg twice daily with add-back therapy (1 mg estradiol/0.5 mg norethidrone acetate [E2/NETA]) once daily. Uterine volume and size and location of uterine fibroid(s) were assessed by ultrasound. Subgroups were defined by baseline FIGO categories, grouped FIGO 0-3, FIGO 4, or FIGO 5-8.³

Over the 6-month studies, 72.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.65–76.73) of the 395 women who received elagolix plus E2/NETA achieved < 80 mL MBL during the final month and ≥ 50% MBL reduction from baseline to the final month. When stratified by FIGO classification, the results were similar for all subgroups: FIGO 0-3, 77.7% (95% CI, 67.21–80.85). Similar results were seen in women with a primary fibroid volume of either greater or less than 36.2 cm³ (median).³



The most frequently reported adverse events among women taking elagolix plus E2/NETA were hot flushes, night sweats, nausea, and headache. Changes in BMD among these women were not significant compared with women taking placebo.³

The Elaris UF-1 and UF-2 studies are funded by AbbVie Inc.

Whether or not women experience symptoms from uterine fibroid(s) can be dependent on a fibroid’s size and location. Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is the most common symptom resulting from fibroids, and it occurs in up to one-third of women with fibroids. For fibroids that are large (>10 cm), “bulk” symptoms may occur, including pelvic pressure, urinary urgency or frequency, incontinence, constipation, abdominal protrusion, etc.¹

Elagolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, was US Food and Drug Administration–approved in 2018 to treat moderate to severe pain caused by endometriosis. ² Elagolix is being evaluated in 2 phase 3 randomized, double-blind trials for the additional treatment of HMB associated with uterine fibroids. The results of these studies were presented at the 2019 AAGL meeting on November 12, in Vancouver, Canada.
 

Phase 3 study details

Premenopausal women aged 18 to 51 years were included in the Elaris UF-1 and UF-2 studies if they had HMB (defined using the alkaline hematin methodology as menstrual blood loss [MBL] >80 mL/cycle) and uterine fibroids as confirmed through ultrasound. Because elagolix suppresses estrogen and progesterone, treatment results in dose- and duration-dependent decreases in bone mineral density (BMD),² and add-back therapy can lessen these adverse effects. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned 1:1:2 to placebo, elagolix 300 mg twice daily, or elagolix 300 mg twice daily with add-back therapy (1 mg estradiol/0.5 mg norethidrone acetate [E2/NETA]) once daily. Uterine volume and size and location of uterine fibroid(s) were assessed by ultrasound. Subgroups were defined by baseline FIGO categories, grouped FIGO 0-3, FIGO 4, or FIGO 5-8.³

Over the 6-month studies, 72.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.65–76.73) of the 395 women who received elagolix plus E2/NETA achieved < 80 mL MBL during the final month and ≥ 50% MBL reduction from baseline to the final month. When stratified by FIGO classification, the results were similar for all subgroups: FIGO 0-3, 77.7% (95% CI, 67.21–80.85). Similar results were seen in women with a primary fibroid volume of either greater or less than 36.2 cm³ (median).³



The most frequently reported adverse events among women taking elagolix plus E2/NETA were hot flushes, night sweats, nausea, and headache. Changes in BMD among these women were not significant compared with women taking placebo.³

The Elaris UF-1 and UF-2 studies are funded by AbbVie Inc.

Uterine fibroids (myomas or leiomyomas) are common and can cause considerable morbidity, including infertility, in reproductive-aged women. In this roundtable discussion, moderated by OBG Management Editorial Board member Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA, 2 experts discuss imaging technologies and classification systems for assessing fibroids, various medical and surgical treatment options, and patient reproductive goals to consider when counseling women with fibroids.

Perspectives on a pervasive problem

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA: First let’s discuss the scope of the problem. How prevalent are uterine fibroids, and what are their effects on quality of life?

Linda D. Bradley, MD: Fibroids are extremely prevalent. Depending on age and race, between 60% and 80% of women have them.¹ About 50% of women with fibroids have no symptoms²; in symptomatic women, the symptoms may vary based on age. Fibroids are more common in women from the African diaspora, who have earlier onset of symptoms, very large or more numerous fibroids, and more symptomatic fibroids, according to some clinical studies.³ While it is a very common disease state, about half of women with fibroids may not have significant symptoms that warrant anything more than watchful waiting or some minimally invasive options.

Ted L. Anderson, MD, PhD: We probably underestimate the scope because we see people coming in with fibroids only when they have a specific problem. There probably are a lot of asymptomatic women out there that we do not know about.

Case 1: Abnormal uterine bleeding in a young woman desiring pregnancy in the near future

Dr. Sanfilippo: Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common dilemma in my practice. Consider the following case example.

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents with heavy, irregular menses over 6 months’ duration. She is interested in pregnancy, not immediately but in several months. She passes clots, soaks a pad in an hour, and has dysmenorrhea and fatigue. She uses no birth control. She is very distraught, as this bleeding truly has changed her lifestyle.

What is your approach to counseling this patient?

Dr. Bradley: You described a woman whose quality of life is very poor—frequent pad changes, clotting, pain. And she wants to have a child. A patient coming to me with those symptoms does not need to wait 4 to 6 months. I would immediately do some early evaluation.

Dr. Anderson: Sometimes a patient comes to us and already has had an ultrasonography exam. That is helpful, but I am driven by the fact that this patient is interested in pregnancy. I want to look at the uterine cavity and will probably do an office hysteroscopy to see if she has fibroids that distort the uterine cavity. Are there fibroids inside the cavity? To what degree does that possibly play a role? The presence of fibroids does not necessarily mean there is distortion of the cavity, and some evidence suggests that you do not need to do anything about those fibroids.⁴ Fibroids actually may not be the source of bleeding. We need to keep an open mind when we do the evaluation.

Continue to: Imaging technologies and classification aids...

Imaging technologies and classification aids

Dr. Sanfilippo: Apropos to your comment, is there a role for a sonohysterography in this population?

Dr. Anderson: That is a great technique. Some clinicians prefer to use sonohysterography while others prefer hysteroscopy. I tend to use hysteroscopy, and I have the equipment in the office. Both are great techniques and they answer the same question with respect to cavity evaluation.

Dr. Bradley: We once studied about 150 patients who, on the same day, with 2 separate examiners (one being me), would first undergo saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and then hysteroscopy, or vice versa. The sensitivity of identifying an intracavitary lesion is quite good with both. The additional benefit with SIS is that you can look at the adnexa.

In terms of the classification by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), sometimes when we do a hysteroscopy, we are not sure how deep a fibroid is—whether it is a type 1 or type 2 or how close it is to the serosa (see illustration, page 26). Are we seeing just the tip of the iceberg? There is a role for imaging, and it is not always an “either/or” situation. There are times, for example, that hysteroscopy will show a type 0. Other times it may not show that, and you look for other things in terms of whether a fibroid abuts the endometrium. The take-home message is that physicians should abandon endometrial biopsy alone and, in this case, not offer a D&C.

In evaluating the endometrium, as gynecologists we should be facile in both technologies. In our workplaces we need to advocate to get trained, to be certified, and to be able to offer both technologies, because sometimes you need both to obtain the right answer.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Let’s talk about the FIGO classification, because it is important to have a communication method not only between physicians but with the patient. If we determine that a fibroid is a type 0, and therefore totally intracavitary, management is different than if the fibroid is a type 1 (less than 50% into the myometrium) or type 2 (more than 50%). What is the role for a classification system such as the FIGO?

Dr. Anderson: I like the FIGO classification system. We can show the patient fibroid classification diagrammatically and she will be able to understand exactly what we are talking about. It’s helpful for patient education and for surgical planning. The approach to a type 0 fibroid is a no-brainer, but with type 1 and more specifically with type 2, where the bulk of the fibroid is intramural and only a portion of that is intracavitary, fibroid size begins to matter a lot in terms of treatment approach.

Sometimes although a fibroid is intracavitary, a laparoscopic rather than hysteroscopic approach is preferred, as long as you can dissect the fibroid away from the endometrium. FIGO classification is very helpful, but I agree with Dr. Bradley that first you need to do a thorough evaluation to make your operative plan.

Continue to: Dr. Sanfilippo...

Dr. Sanfilippo: I encourage residents to go through an orderly sequence of assessment for evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding, including anatomic and endocrinologic factors. The PALM-COEIN classification system is a great mnemonic for use in evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE).⁵ Is there a role for an aid such as PALM-COEIN in your practice?

The PALM-COEIN system helps us to look at 2 things. One is that in addition to structural causes, there can be hematologic causes. While it is rare in a 24-year-old, we all have had the anecdotal patient who came in 6 months ago, had a fibroid, but had a platelet count of 6,000. Second, we have to look at the patient as a whole. My residents, myself, and our fellows look at any bleeding. Does she have a bleeding diathesis, bruising, nose bleeds; has she been anemic, does she have pica? Has she had a blood transfusion, is she on certain medications? We do not want to create a “silo” and think that the patient can have only a fibroid, because then we may miss an opportunity to treat other disease states. She can have a fibroid coexisting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), for instance. I like to look at everything so we can offer appropriate treatment modalities.

Dr. Sanfilippo: You bring up a very important point. Coagulopathies are more common statistically at the earlier part of a woman’s reproductive age group, soon after menarche, but they also occur toward menopause. We have to be cognizant that a woman can develop a coagulopathy throughout the reproductive years.

Dr. Anderson: You have to look at other medical causes. That is where the PALM-COEIN system can help. It helps you take the blinders off. If you focus on the fibroid and treat the fibroid and the patient still has bleeding, you missed something. You have to consider the whole patient and think of all the nonclassical or nonanatomical things, for example, thyroid disease. The PALM-COEIN helps us to evaluate the patient in a methodical way—every patient every time—so you do not miss something.

The value of MRI

Dr. Sanfilippo: What is the role for MRI, and when do you use it? Is it for only when you do a procedure—laparoscopically, robotically, open—so you have a detailed map of the fibroids?

Dr. Anderson: I love MRI, especially for hysteroscopy. I will print out the MRI image and trace the fibroid because there are things I want to know: exactly how much of the fibroid is inside or outside, where this fibroid is in the uterus, and how much of a normal buffer there is between the edge of that fibroid and the serosa. How aggressive can I be, or how cautious do I need to be, during the resection? Maybe this will be a planned 2-stage resection. MRIs are wonderful for fibroid disease, not only for diagnosis but also for surgical planning and patient counseling.

Dr. Bradley: SIS is also very useful. If the patient has an intracavitary fibroid that is larger than 4.5 to 5 cm and we insert the catheter, however, sometimes you cannot distend the cavity very well. Sometimes large intramural fibroids can compress the cavity, making the procedure difficult in an office setting. You cannot see the limits to help you as a surgical option. Although SIS generally is associated with little pain, some patients may have pain, and some patients cannot tolerate the test.

Continue to: I would order an MRI for surgical planning when...

I would order an MRI for surgical planning when a hysteroscopy is equivocal and if I cannot do an SIS. Also, if a patient who had a hysteroscopic resection with incomplete removal comes to me and is still symptomatic, I want to know the depth of penetration.

Obtaining an MRI may sometimes be difficult at a particular institution, and some clinicians have to go through the hurdles of getting an ultrasound to get certified and approved. We have to be our patient’s advocate and do the peer phone calls; any other specialty would require presurgical planning, and we are no different from other surgeons in that regard.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Yes, that can be a stumbling block. In the operating room, I like to have the images right in front of me, ideally an MRI or an ultrasound scan, as I know how to proceed. Having that visual helps me understand how close the fibroid is to the lining of the uterus.

Tapping into radiologists’ expertise

Dr. Bradley: Every quarter we meet with our radiologists, who are very interested in our MRI and SIS reports. They will describe the count and say how many fibroids—that is very helpful instead of just saying she has a bunch of fibroids—but they also will tell us when there is a type 0, a type 2, a type 7 fibroid. The team looks for adenomyosis and for endometriosis that can coexist.

Dr. Anderson: One caution about reading radiology reports is that often someone will come in with a report from an outside hospital or from a small community hospital that may say, “There is a 2-cm submucosal fibroid.” Some people might be tempted to take this person right to the OR, but you need to look at the images yourself, because in a radiologist’s mind “submucosal” truly means under the mucosa, which in our liturgy would be “intramural.” So we need to make sure that we are talking the same language. You should look at the images yourself.

Dr. Sanfilippo: I totally agree. It is also not unreasonable to speak with the radiologists and educate them about the FIGO classification.

Dr. Bradley: I prefer the word “intracavitary” for fibroids. When I see a typed report without the picture, “submucosal” can mean in the cavity or abutting the endometrium.

Case 2: Woman with heavy bleeding and fibroids seeks nonsurgical treatment

Dr. Sanfilippo: A 39-year-old (G3P3) woman is referred for evaluation for heavy vaginal bleeding, soaking a pad in an hour, which has been going on for months. Her primary ObGyn obtained a pelvic sonogram and noted multiple intramural and subserosal fibroids. A sonohysterogram reveals a submucosal myoma.

The patient is not interested in a hysterectomy. She was treated with birth control pills, with no improvement. She is interested in nonsurgical options. Dr. Bradley, what medical treatments might you offer this patient?

Medical treatment options

Dr. Bradley: If oral contraceptives have not worked, a good option would be tranexamic acid. Years ago our hospital was involved with enrolling patients in the multicenter clinical trial of this drug. The classic patient enrolled had regular, predictable, heavy menstrual cycles with alkaline hematin assay of greater than 80. If the case patient described has regular and predictable heavy bleeding every month at the same time, for the same duration, I would consider the use of tranexamic acid. There are several contraindications for the drug, so those exclusion issues would need to be reviewed. Contraindications include subarachnoid hemorrhage. Cerebral edema and cerebral infarction may be caused by tranexamic acid in such patients. Other contraindications include active intravascular clotting and hypersensitivity.

Continue to: Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system...

Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) like the levonorgestrel (LNG) IUS would fit into this patient’s uterine cavity. Like Ted, I want to look into that cavity. I am not sure what “submucosal fibroid” means. If it has not distorted the cavity, or is totally within the uterine cavity, or abuts the endometrial cavity. The LNG-IUS cannot be placed into a uterine cavity that has intracavitary fibroids or sounds to greater than 12 cm. We are not going to put an LNG-IUS in somebody, at least in general, with a globally enlarged uterine cavity. I could ask, do you do that? You do a bimanual exam, and it is 18-weeks in size. I am not sure that I would put it in, but does it meet those criteria? The package insert for the LNG-IUS specifies upper and lower limits of uterine size for placement. I would start with those 2 options (tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS), and also get some more imaging.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda. The submucosal fibroid could be contributing to this patient’s bleeding, but it is not the total contribution. The other fibroids may be completely irrelevant as far as her bleeding is concerned. We may need to deal with that one surgically, which we can do without a hysterectomy, most of the time.

I am a big fan of the LNG-IUS, it has been great in my experience. There are some other treatments available as well, such as gonadotropin–releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. I tell patients that, while GnRH does work, it is not designed to be long-term therapy. If I have, for example, a 49-year-old patient, I just need to get her to menopause. Longer-term GnRH agonists might be a good option in this case. Otherwise, we could use short-term a GnRH agonist to stop the bleeding for a while so that we can reset the clock and get her started on something like levonorgestrel, tranexamic acid, or one of the other medical therapies. That may be a 2-step combination therapy.

Dr. Sanfilippo: There is a whole category of agents available—selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs), pure progesterone receptor antagonists, ulipristal comes to mind. Clinicians need to know that options are available beyond birth control pills.

Dr. Anderson: As I tell patients, there are also “bridge” options. These are interventional procedures that are not hysterectomy, such as uterine fibroid embolization or endometrial ablation if bleeding is really the problem. We might consider a variety of different approaches. Obviously, we do not typically use fibroid embolization for submucosal fibroids, but it depends on how much of the fibroid is intracavitary and how big it is. Other options are a little more aggressive than medical therapy but they do not involve a hysterectomy.

Pros and cons of uterine artery embolization

Dr. Sanfilippo: If a woman desires future childbearing, is there a role for uterine artery embolization? How would you counsel her about the pros and cons?

Dr. Bradley: At the Cleveland Clinic, we generally do not offer uterine artery embolization if the patient wants a child. While it is an excellent method for treating heavy bleeding and bulk symptoms, the endometrium can be impacted. Patients can develop fistula, adhesions, or concentric narrowing, and changes in anti-Müllerian hormone levels, and there is potential for an Asherman-like syndrome and poor perfusion. I have many hysteroscopic images where the anterior wall of the uterus is nice and pink and the posterior wall is totally pale. The embolic microsphere particles can reach the endometrium—I have seen particles in the endometrium when doing a fibroid resection.

Continue to: A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year...

A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year.⁶ If women became pregnant, they had a higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage; placenta accreta, increta, and percreta; and emergent hysterectomy. It was recommended that these women deliver at a tertiary care center due to higher rates of preterm labor and malposition.

If a patient wants a baby, she should find a gynecologic surgeon who does minimally invasive laparoscopic, robotic, or open surgery, because she is more likely to have a take-home baby with a surgical approach than with embolization. In my experience, there is always going to be a patient who wants to keep her uterus at age 49 and who has every comorbidity. I might offer her the embolization just knowing what the odds of pregnancy are.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda but I take a more liberal approach. Sometimes we do a myomectomy because we are trying to enhance fertility, while other times we do a myomectomy to address fibroid-related symptoms. These patients are having specific symptoms, and we want to leave the embolization option open.

If I have a patient who is 39 and becoming pregnant is not necessarily her goal, but she does not want to have a hysterectomy and if she got pregnant it would be okay, I am going to treat her a little different with respect to fibroid embolization than I would treat someone who is actively trying to have a baby. This goes back to what you were saying, let’s treat the patient, not just the fibroid.

Dr. Bradley: That is so important and sentinel. If she really does not want a hysterectomy but does not want a baby, I will ask, “Would you go through in vitro fertilization? Would you take clomiphene?” If she answers no, then I feel more comfortable, like you, with referring the patient for uterine fibroid embolization. The point is to get the patient with the right team to get the best outcomes.

Surgical approaches, intraoperative agents, and suture technique

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, tell us about your surgical approaches to fibroids.

Dr. Anderson: At my institution we do have a fellowship in minimally invasive surgery, but I still do a lot of open myomectomies. I have a few guidelines to determine whether I am going to proceed laparoscopically, do a little minilaparotomy incision, or if a gigantic uterus is going to require a big incision. My mantra to my fellows has always been, “minimally invasive is the impact on the patient, not the size of the incision.”

Sometimes, prolonged anesthesia and Trendelenburg create more morbidity than a minilaparotomy. If a patient has 4 or 5 fibroids and most of them are intramural and I cannot see them but I want to be able to feel them, and to get a really good closure of the myometrium, I might choose to do a minilaparotomy. But if it is a case of a solitary fibroid, I would be more inclined to operate laparoscopically.

Continue to: Dr. Bradley...

Dr. Bradley: Our protocol is similar. We use MRI liberally. If patients have 4 or more fibroids and they are larger than 8 cm, most will have open surgery. I do not do robotic or laparoscopic procedures, so my referral source is for the larger myomas. We do not put retractors in; we can make incisions. Even if we do a huge Maylard incision, it is cosmetically wonderful. We use a loading dose of IV tranexamic acid with tranexamic acid throughout the surgery, and misoprostol intravaginally prior to surgery, to control uterine bleeding.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, is there a role for agents such as vasopressin, and what about routes of administration?

Dr. Anderson: When I do a laparoscopic or open procedure, I inject vasopressin (dilute 20 U in 100 mL of saline) into the pseudocapsule around the fibroid. I also administer rectal misoprostol (400 µg) just before the patient prep is done, which is amazing in reducing blood loss. There is also a role for a GnRH agonist, not necessarily to reduce the size of the uterus but to reduce blood flow in the pelvis and blood loss. Many different techniques are available. I do not use tourniquets, however. If bleeding does occur, I want to see it so I can fix it—not after I have sewn up the uterus and taken off a tourniquet.

Dr. Bradley: Do you use Floseal hemostatic matrix or any other agent to control bleeding?

Dr. Anderson: I do, for local hemostasis.

Dr. Bradley: Some surgeons will use barbed suture.

Dr. Anderson: I do like barbed sutures. In teaching residents to do myomectomy, it is very beneficial. But I am still a big fan of the good old figure-of-8 stitch because it is compressive and you get a good apposition of the tissue, good hemostasis, and strong closure.

Dr. Sanfilippo: We hope that this conversation will change your management of uterine fibroids. I thank Dr. Bradley and Dr. Anderson for a lively and very informative discussion.

Watch the video: Video roundtable–Fibroids: Patient considerations in medical and surgical management

Uterine fibroids (myomas or leiomyomas) are common and can cause considerable morbidity, including infertility, in reproductive-aged women. In this roundtable discussion, moderated by OBG Management Editorial Board member Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA, 2 experts discuss imaging technologies and classification systems for assessing fibroids, various medical and surgical treatment options, and patient reproductive goals to consider when counseling women with fibroids.

Perspectives on a pervasive problem

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA: First let’s discuss the scope of the problem. How prevalent are uterine fibroids, and what are their effects on quality of life?

Linda D. Bradley, MD: Fibroids are extremely prevalent. Depending on age and race, between 60% and 80% of women have them.¹ About 50% of women with fibroids have no symptoms²; in symptomatic women, the symptoms may vary based on age. Fibroids are more common in women from the African diaspora, who have earlier onset of symptoms, very large or more numerous fibroids, and more symptomatic fibroids, according to some clinical studies.³ While it is a very common disease state, about half of women with fibroids may not have significant symptoms that warrant anything more than watchful waiting or some minimally invasive options.

Ted L. Anderson, MD, PhD: We probably underestimate the scope because we see people coming in with fibroids only when they have a specific problem. There probably are a lot of asymptomatic women out there that we do not know about.

Case 1: Abnormal uterine bleeding in a young woman desiring pregnancy in the near future

Dr. Sanfilippo: Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common dilemma in my practice. Consider the following case example.

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents with heavy, irregular menses over 6 months’ duration. She is interested in pregnancy, not immediately but in several months. She passes clots, soaks a pad in an hour, and has dysmenorrhea and fatigue. She uses no birth control. She is very distraught, as this bleeding truly has changed her lifestyle.

What is your approach to counseling this patient?

Dr. Bradley: You described a woman whose quality of life is very poor—frequent pad changes, clotting, pain. And she wants to have a child. A patient coming to me with those symptoms does not need to wait 4 to 6 months. I would immediately do some early evaluation.

Dr. Anderson: Sometimes a patient comes to us and already has had an ultrasonography exam. That is helpful, but I am driven by the fact that this patient is interested in pregnancy. I want to look at the uterine cavity and will probably do an office hysteroscopy to see if she has fibroids that distort the uterine cavity. Are there fibroids inside the cavity? To what degree does that possibly play a role? The presence of fibroids does not necessarily mean there is distortion of the cavity, and some evidence suggests that you do not need to do anything about those fibroids.⁴ Fibroids actually may not be the source of bleeding. We need to keep an open mind when we do the evaluation.

Continue to: Imaging technologies and classification aids...

Imaging technologies and classification aids

Dr. Sanfilippo: Apropos to your comment, is there a role for a sonohysterography in this population?

Dr. Anderson: That is a great technique. Some clinicians prefer to use sonohysterography while others prefer hysteroscopy. I tend to use hysteroscopy, and I have the equipment in the office. Both are great techniques and they answer the same question with respect to cavity evaluation.

Dr. Bradley: We once studied about 150 patients who, on the same day, with 2 separate examiners (one being me), would first undergo saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and then hysteroscopy, or vice versa. The sensitivity of identifying an intracavitary lesion is quite good with both. The additional benefit with SIS is that you can look at the adnexa.

In terms of the classification by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), sometimes when we do a hysteroscopy, we are not sure how deep a fibroid is—whether it is a type 1 or type 2 or how close it is to the serosa (see illustration, page 26). Are we seeing just the tip of the iceberg? There is a role for imaging, and it is not always an “either/or” situation. There are times, for example, that hysteroscopy will show a type 0. Other times it may not show that, and you look for other things in terms of whether a fibroid abuts the endometrium. The take-home message is that physicians should abandon endometrial biopsy alone and, in this case, not offer a D&C.

In evaluating the endometrium, as gynecologists we should be facile in both technologies. In our workplaces we need to advocate to get trained, to be certified, and to be able to offer both technologies, because sometimes you need both to obtain the right answer.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Let’s talk about the FIGO classification, because it is important to have a communication method not only between physicians but with the patient. If we determine that a fibroid is a type 0, and therefore totally intracavitary, management is different than if the fibroid is a type 1 (less than 50% into the myometrium) or type 2 (more than 50%). What is the role for a classification system such as the FIGO?

Dr. Anderson: I like the FIGO classification system. We can show the patient fibroid classification diagrammatically and she will be able to understand exactly what we are talking about. It’s helpful for patient education and for surgical planning. The approach to a type 0 fibroid is a no-brainer, but with type 1 and more specifically with type 2, where the bulk of the fibroid is intramural and only a portion of that is intracavitary, fibroid size begins to matter a lot in terms of treatment approach.

Sometimes although a fibroid is intracavitary, a laparoscopic rather than hysteroscopic approach is preferred, as long as you can dissect the fibroid away from the endometrium. FIGO classification is very helpful, but I agree with Dr. Bradley that first you need to do a thorough evaluation to make your operative plan.

Continue to: Dr. Sanfilippo...

Dr. Sanfilippo: I encourage residents to go through an orderly sequence of assessment for evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding, including anatomic and endocrinologic factors. The PALM-COEIN classification system is a great mnemonic for use in evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE).⁵ Is there a role for an aid such as PALM-COEIN in your practice?

The PALM-COEIN system helps us to look at 2 things. One is that in addition to structural causes, there can be hematologic causes. While it is rare in a 24-year-old, we all have had the anecdotal patient who came in 6 months ago, had a fibroid, but had a platelet count of 6,000. Second, we have to look at the patient as a whole. My residents, myself, and our fellows look at any bleeding. Does she have a bleeding diathesis, bruising, nose bleeds; has she been anemic, does she have pica? Has she had a blood transfusion, is she on certain medications? We do not want to create a “silo” and think that the patient can have only a fibroid, because then we may miss an opportunity to treat other disease states. She can have a fibroid coexisting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), for instance. I like to look at everything so we can offer appropriate treatment modalities.

Dr. Sanfilippo: You bring up a very important point. Coagulopathies are more common statistically at the earlier part of a woman’s reproductive age group, soon after menarche, but they also occur toward menopause. We have to be cognizant that a woman can develop a coagulopathy throughout the reproductive years.

Dr. Anderson: You have to look at other medical causes. That is where the PALM-COEIN system can help. It helps you take the blinders off. If you focus on the fibroid and treat the fibroid and the patient still has bleeding, you missed something. You have to consider the whole patient and think of all the nonclassical or nonanatomical things, for example, thyroid disease. The PALM-COEIN helps us to evaluate the patient in a methodical way—every patient every time—so you do not miss something.

The value of MRI

Dr. Sanfilippo: What is the role for MRI, and when do you use it? Is it for only when you do a procedure—laparoscopically, robotically, open—so you have a detailed map of the fibroids?

Dr. Anderson: I love MRI, especially for hysteroscopy. I will print out the MRI image and trace the fibroid because there are things I want to know: exactly how much of the fibroid is inside or outside, where this fibroid is in the uterus, and how much of a normal buffer there is between the edge of that fibroid and the serosa. How aggressive can I be, or how cautious do I need to be, during the resection? Maybe this will be a planned 2-stage resection. MRIs are wonderful for fibroid disease, not only for diagnosis but also for surgical planning and patient counseling.

Dr. Bradley: SIS is also very useful. If the patient has an intracavitary fibroid that is larger than 4.5 to 5 cm and we insert the catheter, however, sometimes you cannot distend the cavity very well. Sometimes large intramural fibroids can compress the cavity, making the procedure difficult in an office setting. You cannot see the limits to help you as a surgical option. Although SIS generally is associated with little pain, some patients may have pain, and some patients cannot tolerate the test.

Continue to: I would order an MRI for surgical planning when...

I would order an MRI for surgical planning when a hysteroscopy is equivocal and if I cannot do an SIS. Also, if a patient who had a hysteroscopic resection with incomplete removal comes to me and is still symptomatic, I want to know the depth of penetration.

Obtaining an MRI may sometimes be difficult at a particular institution, and some clinicians have to go through the hurdles of getting an ultrasound to get certified and approved. We have to be our patient’s advocate and do the peer phone calls; any other specialty would require presurgical planning, and we are no different from other surgeons in that regard.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Yes, that can be a stumbling block. In the operating room, I like to have the images right in front of me, ideally an MRI or an ultrasound scan, as I know how to proceed. Having that visual helps me understand how close the fibroid is to the lining of the uterus.

Tapping into radiologists’ expertise

Dr. Bradley: Every quarter we meet with our radiologists, who are very interested in our MRI and SIS reports. They will describe the count and say how many fibroids—that is very helpful instead of just saying she has a bunch of fibroids—but they also will tell us when there is a type 0, a type 2, a type 7 fibroid. The team looks for adenomyosis and for endometriosis that can coexist.

Dr. Anderson: One caution about reading radiology reports is that often someone will come in with a report from an outside hospital or from a small community hospital that may say, “There is a 2-cm submucosal fibroid.” Some people might be tempted to take this person right to the OR, but you need to look at the images yourself, because in a radiologist’s mind “submucosal” truly means under the mucosa, which in our liturgy would be “intramural.” So we need to make sure that we are talking the same language. You should look at the images yourself.

Dr. Sanfilippo: I totally agree. It is also not unreasonable to speak with the radiologists and educate them about the FIGO classification.

Dr. Bradley: I prefer the word “intracavitary” for fibroids. When I see a typed report without the picture, “submucosal” can mean in the cavity or abutting the endometrium.

Case 2: Woman with heavy bleeding and fibroids seeks nonsurgical treatment

Dr. Sanfilippo: A 39-year-old (G3P3) woman is referred for evaluation for heavy vaginal bleeding, soaking a pad in an hour, which has been going on for months. Her primary ObGyn obtained a pelvic sonogram and noted multiple intramural and subserosal fibroids. A sonohysterogram reveals a submucosal myoma.

The patient is not interested in a hysterectomy. She was treated with birth control pills, with no improvement. She is interested in nonsurgical options. Dr. Bradley, what medical treatments might you offer this patient?

Medical treatment options

Dr. Bradley: If oral contraceptives have not worked, a good option would be tranexamic acid. Years ago our hospital was involved with enrolling patients in the multicenter clinical trial of this drug. The classic patient enrolled had regular, predictable, heavy menstrual cycles with alkaline hematin assay of greater than 80. If the case patient described has regular and predictable heavy bleeding every month at the same time, for the same duration, I would consider the use of tranexamic acid. There are several contraindications for the drug, so those exclusion issues would need to be reviewed. Contraindications include subarachnoid hemorrhage. Cerebral edema and cerebral infarction may be caused by tranexamic acid in such patients. Other contraindications include active intravascular clotting and hypersensitivity.

Continue to: Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system...

Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) like the levonorgestrel (LNG) IUS would fit into this patient’s uterine cavity. Like Ted, I want to look into that cavity. I am not sure what “submucosal fibroid” means. If it has not distorted the cavity, or is totally within the uterine cavity, or abuts the endometrial cavity. The LNG-IUS cannot be placed into a uterine cavity that has intracavitary fibroids or sounds to greater than 12 cm. We are not going to put an LNG-IUS in somebody, at least in general, with a globally enlarged uterine cavity. I could ask, do you do that? You do a bimanual exam, and it is 18-weeks in size. I am not sure that I would put it in, but does it meet those criteria? The package insert for the LNG-IUS specifies upper and lower limits of uterine size for placement. I would start with those 2 options (tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS), and also get some more imaging.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda. The submucosal fibroid could be contributing to this patient’s bleeding, but it is not the total contribution. The other fibroids may be completely irrelevant as far as her bleeding is concerned. We may need to deal with that one surgically, which we can do without a hysterectomy, most of the time.

I am a big fan of the LNG-IUS, it has been great in my experience. There are some other treatments available as well, such as gonadotropin–releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. I tell patients that, while GnRH does work, it is not designed to be long-term therapy. If I have, for example, a 49-year-old patient, I just need to get her to menopause. Longer-term GnRH agonists might be a good option in this case. Otherwise, we could use short-term a GnRH agonist to stop the bleeding for a while so that we can reset the clock and get her started on something like levonorgestrel, tranexamic acid, or one of the other medical therapies. That may be a 2-step combination therapy.

Dr. Sanfilippo: There is a whole category of agents available—selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs), pure progesterone receptor antagonists, ulipristal comes to mind. Clinicians need to know that options are available beyond birth control pills.

Dr. Anderson: As I tell patients, there are also “bridge” options. These are interventional procedures that are not hysterectomy, such as uterine fibroid embolization or endometrial ablation if bleeding is really the problem. We might consider a variety of different approaches. Obviously, we do not typically use fibroid embolization for submucosal fibroids, but it depends on how much of the fibroid is intracavitary and how big it is. Other options are a little more aggressive than medical therapy but they do not involve a hysterectomy.

Pros and cons of uterine artery embolization

Dr. Sanfilippo: If a woman desires future childbearing, is there a role for uterine artery embolization? How would you counsel her about the pros and cons?

Dr. Bradley: At the Cleveland Clinic, we generally do not offer uterine artery embolization if the patient wants a child. While it is an excellent method for treating heavy bleeding and bulk symptoms, the endometrium can be impacted. Patients can develop fistula, adhesions, or concentric narrowing, and changes in anti-Müllerian hormone levels, and there is potential for an Asherman-like syndrome and poor perfusion. I have many hysteroscopic images where the anterior wall of the uterus is nice and pink and the posterior wall is totally pale. The embolic microsphere particles can reach the endometrium—I have seen particles in the endometrium when doing a fibroid resection.

Continue to: A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year...

A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year.⁶ If women became pregnant, they had a higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage; placenta accreta, increta, and percreta; and emergent hysterectomy. It was recommended that these women deliver at a tertiary care center due to higher rates of preterm labor and malposition.

If a patient wants a baby, she should find a gynecologic surgeon who does minimally invasive laparoscopic, robotic, or open surgery, because she is more likely to have a take-home baby with a surgical approach than with embolization. In my experience, there is always going to be a patient who wants to keep her uterus at age 49 and who has every comorbidity. I might offer her the embolization just knowing what the odds of pregnancy are.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda but I take a more liberal approach. Sometimes we do a myomectomy because we are trying to enhance fertility, while other times we do a myomectomy to address fibroid-related symptoms. These patients are having specific symptoms, and we want to leave the embolization option open.

If I have a patient who is 39 and becoming pregnant is not necessarily her goal, but she does not want to have a hysterectomy and if she got pregnant it would be okay, I am going to treat her a little different with respect to fibroid embolization than I would treat someone who is actively trying to have a baby. This goes back to what you were saying, let’s treat the patient, not just the fibroid.

Dr. Bradley: That is so important and sentinel. If she really does not want a hysterectomy but does not want a baby, I will ask, “Would you go through in vitro fertilization? Would you take clomiphene?” If she answers no, then I feel more comfortable, like you, with referring the patient for uterine fibroid embolization. The point is to get the patient with the right team to get the best outcomes.

Surgical approaches, intraoperative agents, and suture technique

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, tell us about your surgical approaches to fibroids.

Dr. Anderson: At my institution we do have a fellowship in minimally invasive surgery, but I still do a lot of open myomectomies. I have a few guidelines to determine whether I am going to proceed laparoscopically, do a little minilaparotomy incision, or if a gigantic uterus is going to require a big incision. My mantra to my fellows has always been, “minimally invasive is the impact on the patient, not the size of the incision.”

Sometimes, prolonged anesthesia and Trendelenburg create more morbidity than a minilaparotomy. If a patient has 4 or 5 fibroids and most of them are intramural and I cannot see them but I want to be able to feel them, and to get a really good closure of the myometrium, I might choose to do a minilaparotomy. But if it is a case of a solitary fibroid, I would be more inclined to operate laparoscopically.

Continue to: Dr. Bradley...

Dr. Bradley: Our protocol is similar. We use MRI liberally. If patients have 4 or more fibroids and they are larger than 8 cm, most will have open surgery. I do not do robotic or laparoscopic procedures, so my referral source is for the larger myomas. We do not put retractors in; we can make incisions. Even if we do a huge Maylard incision, it is cosmetically wonderful. We use a loading dose of IV tranexamic acid with tranexamic acid throughout the surgery, and misoprostol intravaginally prior to surgery, to control uterine bleeding.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, is there a role for agents such as vasopressin, and what about routes of administration?

Dr. Anderson: When I do a laparoscopic or open procedure, I inject vasopressin (dilute 20 U in 100 mL of saline) into the pseudocapsule around the fibroid. I also administer rectal misoprostol (400 µg) just before the patient prep is done, which is amazing in reducing blood loss. There is also a role for a GnRH agonist, not necessarily to reduce the size of the uterus but to reduce blood flow in the pelvis and blood loss. Many different techniques are available. I do not use tourniquets, however. If bleeding does occur, I want to see it so I can fix it—not after I have sewn up the uterus and taken off a tourniquet.

Dr. Bradley: Do you use Floseal hemostatic matrix or any other agent to control bleeding?

Dr. Anderson: I do, for local hemostasis.

Dr. Bradley: Some surgeons will use barbed suture.

Dr. Anderson: I do like barbed sutures. In teaching residents to do myomectomy, it is very beneficial. But I am still a big fan of the good old figure-of-8 stitch because it is compressive and you get a good apposition of the tissue, good hemostasis, and strong closure.

Dr. Sanfilippo: We hope that this conversation will change your management of uterine fibroids. I thank Dr. Bradley and Dr. Anderson for a lively and very informative discussion.

Watch the video: Video roundtable–Fibroids: Patient considerations in medical and surgical management

Uterine fibroids (myomas or leiomyomas) are common and can cause considerable morbidity, including infertility, in reproductive-aged women. In this roundtable discussion, moderated by OBG Management Editorial Board member Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA, 2 experts discuss imaging technologies and classification systems for assessing fibroids, various medical and surgical treatment options, and patient reproductive goals to consider when counseling women with fibroids.

Perspectives on a pervasive problem

Joseph S. Sanfilippo, MD, MBA: First let’s discuss the scope of the problem. How prevalent are uterine fibroids, and what are their effects on quality of life?

Linda D. Bradley, MD: Fibroids are extremely prevalent. Depending on age and race, between 60% and 80% of women have them.¹ About 50% of women with fibroids have no symptoms²; in symptomatic women, the symptoms may vary based on age. Fibroids are more common in women from the African diaspora, who have earlier onset of symptoms, very large or more numerous fibroids, and more symptomatic fibroids, according to some clinical studies.³ While it is a very common disease state, about half of women with fibroids may not have significant symptoms that warrant anything more than watchful waiting or some minimally invasive options.

Ted L. Anderson, MD, PhD: We probably underestimate the scope because we see people coming in with fibroids only when they have a specific problem. There probably are a lot of asymptomatic women out there that we do not know about.

Case 1: Abnormal uterine bleeding in a young woman desiring pregnancy in the near future

Dr. Sanfilippo: Abnormal uterine bleeding is a common dilemma in my practice. Consider the following case example.

A 24-year-old woman (G1P1) presents with heavy, irregular menses over 6 months’ duration. She is interested in pregnancy, not immediately but in several months. She passes clots, soaks a pad in an hour, and has dysmenorrhea and fatigue. She uses no birth control. She is very distraught, as this bleeding truly has changed her lifestyle.

What is your approach to counseling this patient?

Dr. Bradley: You described a woman whose quality of life is very poor—frequent pad changes, clotting, pain. And she wants to have a child. A patient coming to me with those symptoms does not need to wait 4 to 6 months. I would immediately do some early evaluation.

Dr. Anderson: Sometimes a patient comes to us and already has had an ultrasonography exam. That is helpful, but I am driven by the fact that this patient is interested in pregnancy. I want to look at the uterine cavity and will probably do an office hysteroscopy to see if she has fibroids that distort the uterine cavity. Are there fibroids inside the cavity? To what degree does that possibly play a role? The presence of fibroids does not necessarily mean there is distortion of the cavity, and some evidence suggests that you do not need to do anything about those fibroids.⁴ Fibroids actually may not be the source of bleeding. We need to keep an open mind when we do the evaluation.

Continue to: Imaging technologies and classification aids...

Imaging technologies and classification aids

Dr. Sanfilippo: Apropos to your comment, is there a role for a sonohysterography in this population?

Dr. Anderson: That is a great technique. Some clinicians prefer to use sonohysterography while others prefer hysteroscopy. I tend to use hysteroscopy, and I have the equipment in the office. Both are great techniques and they answer the same question with respect to cavity evaluation.

Dr. Bradley: We once studied about 150 patients who, on the same day, with 2 separate examiners (one being me), would first undergo saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and then hysteroscopy, or vice versa. The sensitivity of identifying an intracavitary lesion is quite good with both. The additional benefit with SIS is that you can look at the adnexa.

In terms of the classification by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), sometimes when we do a hysteroscopy, we are not sure how deep a fibroid is—whether it is a type 1 or type 2 or how close it is to the serosa (see illustration, page 26). Are we seeing just the tip of the iceberg? There is a role for imaging, and it is not always an “either/or” situation. There are times, for example, that hysteroscopy will show a type 0. Other times it may not show that, and you look for other things in terms of whether a fibroid abuts the endometrium. The take-home message is that physicians should abandon endometrial biopsy alone and, in this case, not offer a D&C.

In evaluating the endometrium, as gynecologists we should be facile in both technologies. In our workplaces we need to advocate to get trained, to be certified, and to be able to offer both technologies, because sometimes you need both to obtain the right answer.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Let’s talk about the FIGO classification, because it is important to have a communication method not only between physicians but with the patient. If we determine that a fibroid is a type 0, and therefore totally intracavitary, management is different than if the fibroid is a type 1 (less than 50% into the myometrium) or type 2 (more than 50%). What is the role for a classification system such as the FIGO?

Dr. Anderson: I like the FIGO classification system. We can show the patient fibroid classification diagrammatically and she will be able to understand exactly what we are talking about. It’s helpful for patient education and for surgical planning. The approach to a type 0 fibroid is a no-brainer, but with type 1 and more specifically with type 2, where the bulk of the fibroid is intramural and only a portion of that is intracavitary, fibroid size begins to matter a lot in terms of treatment approach.

Sometimes although a fibroid is intracavitary, a laparoscopic rather than hysteroscopic approach is preferred, as long as you can dissect the fibroid away from the endometrium. FIGO classification is very helpful, but I agree with Dr. Bradley that first you need to do a thorough evaluation to make your operative plan.

Continue to: Dr. Sanfilippo...

Dr. Sanfilippo: I encourage residents to go through an orderly sequence of assessment for evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding, including anatomic and endocrinologic factors. The PALM-COEIN classification system is a great mnemonic for use in evaluating abnormal uterine bleeding (TABLE).⁵ Is there a role for an aid such as PALM-COEIN in your practice?

The PALM-COEIN system helps us to look at 2 things. One is that in addition to structural causes, there can be hematologic causes. While it is rare in a 24-year-old, we all have had the anecdotal patient who came in 6 months ago, had a fibroid, but had a platelet count of 6,000. Second, we have to look at the patient as a whole. My residents, myself, and our fellows look at any bleeding. Does she have a bleeding diathesis, bruising, nose bleeds; has she been anemic, does she have pica? Has she had a blood transfusion, is she on certain medications? We do not want to create a “silo” and think that the patient can have only a fibroid, because then we may miss an opportunity to treat other disease states. She can have a fibroid coexisting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), for instance. I like to look at everything so we can offer appropriate treatment modalities.

Dr. Sanfilippo: You bring up a very important point. Coagulopathies are more common statistically at the earlier part of a woman’s reproductive age group, soon after menarche, but they also occur toward menopause. We have to be cognizant that a woman can develop a coagulopathy throughout the reproductive years.

Dr. Anderson: You have to look at other medical causes. That is where the PALM-COEIN system can help. It helps you take the blinders off. If you focus on the fibroid and treat the fibroid and the patient still has bleeding, you missed something. You have to consider the whole patient and think of all the nonclassical or nonanatomical things, for example, thyroid disease. The PALM-COEIN helps us to evaluate the patient in a methodical way—every patient every time—so you do not miss something.

The value of MRI

Dr. Sanfilippo: What is the role for MRI, and when do you use it? Is it for only when you do a procedure—laparoscopically, robotically, open—so you have a detailed map of the fibroids?

Dr. Anderson: I love MRI, especially for hysteroscopy. I will print out the MRI image and trace the fibroid because there are things I want to know: exactly how much of the fibroid is inside or outside, where this fibroid is in the uterus, and how much of a normal buffer there is between the edge of that fibroid and the serosa. How aggressive can I be, or how cautious do I need to be, during the resection? Maybe this will be a planned 2-stage resection. MRIs are wonderful for fibroid disease, not only for diagnosis but also for surgical planning and patient counseling.

Dr. Bradley: SIS is also very useful. If the patient has an intracavitary fibroid that is larger than 4.5 to 5 cm and we insert the catheter, however, sometimes you cannot distend the cavity very well. Sometimes large intramural fibroids can compress the cavity, making the procedure difficult in an office setting. You cannot see the limits to help you as a surgical option. Although SIS generally is associated with little pain, some patients may have pain, and some patients cannot tolerate the test.

Continue to: I would order an MRI for surgical planning when...

I would order an MRI for surgical planning when a hysteroscopy is equivocal and if I cannot do an SIS. Also, if a patient who had a hysteroscopic resection with incomplete removal comes to me and is still symptomatic, I want to know the depth of penetration.

Obtaining an MRI may sometimes be difficult at a particular institution, and some clinicians have to go through the hurdles of getting an ultrasound to get certified and approved. We have to be our patient’s advocate and do the peer phone calls; any other specialty would require presurgical planning, and we are no different from other surgeons in that regard.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Yes, that can be a stumbling block. In the operating room, I like to have the images right in front of me, ideally an MRI or an ultrasound scan, as I know how to proceed. Having that visual helps me understand how close the fibroid is to the lining of the uterus.

Tapping into radiologists’ expertise

Dr. Bradley: Every quarter we meet with our radiologists, who are very interested in our MRI and SIS reports. They will describe the count and say how many fibroids—that is very helpful instead of just saying she has a bunch of fibroids—but they also will tell us when there is a type 0, a type 2, a type 7 fibroid. The team looks for adenomyosis and for endometriosis that can coexist.

Dr. Anderson: One caution about reading radiology reports is that often someone will come in with a report from an outside hospital or from a small community hospital that may say, “There is a 2-cm submucosal fibroid.” Some people might be tempted to take this person right to the OR, but you need to look at the images yourself, because in a radiologist’s mind “submucosal” truly means under the mucosa, which in our liturgy would be “intramural.” So we need to make sure that we are talking the same language. You should look at the images yourself.

Dr. Sanfilippo: I totally agree. It is also not unreasonable to speak with the radiologists and educate them about the FIGO classification.

Dr. Bradley: I prefer the word “intracavitary” for fibroids. When I see a typed report without the picture, “submucosal” can mean in the cavity or abutting the endometrium.

Case 2: Woman with heavy bleeding and fibroids seeks nonsurgical treatment

Dr. Sanfilippo: A 39-year-old (G3P3) woman is referred for evaluation for heavy vaginal bleeding, soaking a pad in an hour, which has been going on for months. Her primary ObGyn obtained a pelvic sonogram and noted multiple intramural and subserosal fibroids. A sonohysterogram reveals a submucosal myoma.

The patient is not interested in a hysterectomy. She was treated with birth control pills, with no improvement. She is interested in nonsurgical options. Dr. Bradley, what medical treatments might you offer this patient?

Medical treatment options

Dr. Bradley: If oral contraceptives have not worked, a good option would be tranexamic acid. Years ago our hospital was involved with enrolling patients in the multicenter clinical trial of this drug. The classic patient enrolled had regular, predictable, heavy menstrual cycles with alkaline hematin assay of greater than 80. If the case patient described has regular and predictable heavy bleeding every month at the same time, for the same duration, I would consider the use of tranexamic acid. There are several contraindications for the drug, so those exclusion issues would need to be reviewed. Contraindications include subarachnoid hemorrhage. Cerebral edema and cerebral infarction may be caused by tranexamic acid in such patients. Other contraindications include active intravascular clotting and hypersensitivity.

Continue to: Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system...

Another option is to see if a progestin-releasing intrauterine system (IUS) like the levonorgestrel (LNG) IUS would fit into this patient’s uterine cavity. Like Ted, I want to look into that cavity. I am not sure what “submucosal fibroid” means. If it has not distorted the cavity, or is totally within the uterine cavity, or abuts the endometrial cavity. The LNG-IUS cannot be placed into a uterine cavity that has intracavitary fibroids or sounds to greater than 12 cm. We are not going to put an LNG-IUS in somebody, at least in general, with a globally enlarged uterine cavity. I could ask, do you do that? You do a bimanual exam, and it is 18-weeks in size. I am not sure that I would put it in, but does it meet those criteria? The package insert for the LNG-IUS specifies upper and lower limits of uterine size for placement. I would start with those 2 options (tranexamic acid and LNG-IUS), and also get some more imaging.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda. The submucosal fibroid could be contributing to this patient’s bleeding, but it is not the total contribution. The other fibroids may be completely irrelevant as far as her bleeding is concerned. We may need to deal with that one surgically, which we can do without a hysterectomy, most of the time.

I am a big fan of the LNG-IUS, it has been great in my experience. There are some other treatments available as well, such as gonadotropin–releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists. I tell patients that, while GnRH does work, it is not designed to be long-term therapy. If I have, for example, a 49-year-old patient, I just need to get her to menopause. Longer-term GnRH agonists might be a good option in this case. Otherwise, we could use short-term a GnRH agonist to stop the bleeding for a while so that we can reset the clock and get her started on something like levonorgestrel, tranexamic acid, or one of the other medical therapies. That may be a 2-step combination therapy.

Dr. Sanfilippo: There is a whole category of agents available—selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs), pure progesterone receptor antagonists, ulipristal comes to mind. Clinicians need to know that options are available beyond birth control pills.

Dr. Anderson: As I tell patients, there are also “bridge” options. These are interventional procedures that are not hysterectomy, such as uterine fibroid embolization or endometrial ablation if bleeding is really the problem. We might consider a variety of different approaches. Obviously, we do not typically use fibroid embolization for submucosal fibroids, but it depends on how much of the fibroid is intracavitary and how big it is. Other options are a little more aggressive than medical therapy but they do not involve a hysterectomy.

Pros and cons of uterine artery embolization

Dr. Sanfilippo: If a woman desires future childbearing, is there a role for uterine artery embolization? How would you counsel her about the pros and cons?

Dr. Bradley: At the Cleveland Clinic, we generally do not offer uterine artery embolization if the patient wants a child. While it is an excellent method for treating heavy bleeding and bulk symptoms, the endometrium can be impacted. Patients can develop fistula, adhesions, or concentric narrowing, and changes in anti-Müllerian hormone levels, and there is potential for an Asherman-like syndrome and poor perfusion. I have many hysteroscopic images where the anterior wall of the uterus is nice and pink and the posterior wall is totally pale. The embolic microsphere particles can reach the endometrium—I have seen particles in the endometrium when doing a fibroid resection.

Continue to: A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year...

A good early study looked at 555 women for almost a year.⁶ If women became pregnant, they had a higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage; placenta accreta, increta, and percreta; and emergent hysterectomy. It was recommended that these women deliver at a tertiary care center due to higher rates of preterm labor and malposition.

If a patient wants a baby, she should find a gynecologic surgeon who does minimally invasive laparoscopic, robotic, or open surgery, because she is more likely to have a take-home baby with a surgical approach than with embolization. In my experience, there is always going to be a patient who wants to keep her uterus at age 49 and who has every comorbidity. I might offer her the embolization just knowing what the odds of pregnancy are.

Dr. Anderson: I agree with Linda but I take a more liberal approach. Sometimes we do a myomectomy because we are trying to enhance fertility, while other times we do a myomectomy to address fibroid-related symptoms. These patients are having specific symptoms, and we want to leave the embolization option open.

If I have a patient who is 39 and becoming pregnant is not necessarily her goal, but she does not want to have a hysterectomy and if she got pregnant it would be okay, I am going to treat her a little different with respect to fibroid embolization than I would treat someone who is actively trying to have a baby. This goes back to what you were saying, let’s treat the patient, not just the fibroid.

Dr. Bradley: That is so important and sentinel. If she really does not want a hysterectomy but does not want a baby, I will ask, “Would you go through in vitro fertilization? Would you take clomiphene?” If she answers no, then I feel more comfortable, like you, with referring the patient for uterine fibroid embolization. The point is to get the patient with the right team to get the best outcomes.

Surgical approaches, intraoperative agents, and suture technique

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, tell us about your surgical approaches to fibroids.

Dr. Anderson: At my institution we do have a fellowship in minimally invasive surgery, but I still do a lot of open myomectomies. I have a few guidelines to determine whether I am going to proceed laparoscopically, do a little minilaparotomy incision, or if a gigantic uterus is going to require a big incision. My mantra to my fellows has always been, “minimally invasive is the impact on the patient, not the size of the incision.”

Sometimes, prolonged anesthesia and Trendelenburg create more morbidity than a minilaparotomy. If a patient has 4 or 5 fibroids and most of them are intramural and I cannot see them but I want to be able to feel them, and to get a really good closure of the myometrium, I might choose to do a minilaparotomy. But if it is a case of a solitary fibroid, I would be more inclined to operate laparoscopically.

Continue to: Dr. Bradley...

Dr. Bradley: Our protocol is similar. We use MRI liberally. If patients have 4 or more fibroids and they are larger than 8 cm, most will have open surgery. I do not do robotic or laparoscopic procedures, so my referral source is for the larger myomas. We do not put retractors in; we can make incisions. Even if we do a huge Maylard incision, it is cosmetically wonderful. We use a loading dose of IV tranexamic acid with tranexamic acid throughout the surgery, and misoprostol intravaginally prior to surgery, to control uterine bleeding.

Dr. Sanfilippo: Dr. Anderson, is there a role for agents such as vasopressin, and what about routes of administration?

Dr. Anderson: When I do a laparoscopic or open procedure, I inject vasopressin (dilute 20 U in 100 mL of saline) into the pseudocapsule around the fibroid. I also administer rectal misoprostol (400 µg) just before the patient prep is done, which is amazing in reducing blood loss. There is also a role for a GnRH agonist, not necessarily to reduce the size of the uterus but to reduce blood flow in the pelvis and blood loss. Many different techniques are available. I do not use tourniquets, however. If bleeding does occur, I want to see it so I can fix it—not after I have sewn up the uterus and taken off a tourniquet.

Dr. Bradley: Do you use Floseal hemostatic matrix or any other agent to control bleeding?

Dr. Anderson: I do, for local hemostasis.

Dr. Bradley: Some surgeons will use barbed suture.

Dr. Anderson: I do like barbed sutures. In teaching residents to do myomectomy, it is very beneficial. But I am still a big fan of the good old figure-of-8 stitch because it is compressive and you get a good apposition of the tissue, good hemostasis, and strong closure.

Dr. Sanfilippo: We hope that this conversation will change your management of uterine fibroids. I thank Dr. Bradley and Dr. Anderson for a lively and very informative discussion.

Watch the video: Video roundtable–Fibroids: Patient considerations in medical and surgical management

LAS VEGAS – It’s the number of uterine incisions and fibroids removed that increase the risk of miscarriage after fibroid treatment, not the type of procedure, according to a review of 252 cases at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Surgeons feel terrible when a woman loses a pregnancy after fibroid treatment, and wonder if they “caused it, or if it was just a bad uterus or a bad initial pathology,” said lead investigator Laura M. Glaser, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice in Lake Forest, Ill.

Her study, which was presented at a meeting sponsored by AAGL, suggests that miscarriage occurs mostly from complex pathology, as indicated by the number of fibroids and the degree of uterine cutting needed to remove them. The team reviewed outcomes among women who conceived after treatment; 28 had robotic-assisted myomectomies; 208 had open, abdominal myomectomies; and 16 had uterine fibroid embolization (UFE). Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.

After the researchers adjusted for age, body mass index, and parity, there were no statistically significant differences in miscarriage rates among the three groups (31% after UFE, 29% after robotic myomectomy, and 22% after abdominal myomectomy).

Open cases had the largest dominant fibroid at a mean of 8.5 cm, the most fibroids removed at 4.5, and the highest rate of cavity entry, 42%. Even so, at 22%, open cases were the least likely to miscarry.

Uterine size, specimen weight, time from procedure to pregnancy, and fibroid location didn’t seem to matter otherwise. The only risk factors that reached statistical significance were among women who had myomectomies; an increasing number of uterine cuts (odds ratio, 1.558; P = .004) and fibroids removed (OR, 1.11; P = .033) increased the odds of miscarriage.

More than 40% of women in the UFE group had previous fibroid surgery, versus 5% among women who had myomectomies. UFE women also were far more likely to have had a previous birth (50% versus 17%), but less likely to have subserosal fibroids (13% versus 33%), and their dominant fibroid was a few centimeters smaller.

Subjects were in their mid-30s, on average, with a mean body mass index of about 28 kg/m². Just over 40% of the women who had myomectomies were white, versus 19% of women who had UFE.

There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Glaser LM et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 160

LAS VEGAS – It’s the number of uterine incisions and fibroids removed that increase the risk of miscarriage after fibroid treatment, not the type of procedure, according to a review of 252 cases at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Surgeons feel terrible when a woman loses a pregnancy after fibroid treatment, and wonder if they “caused it, or if it was just a bad uterus or a bad initial pathology,” said lead investigator Laura M. Glaser, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice in Lake Forest, Ill.

Her study, which was presented at a meeting sponsored by AAGL, suggests that miscarriage occurs mostly from complex pathology, as indicated by the number of fibroids and the degree of uterine cutting needed to remove them. The team reviewed outcomes among women who conceived after treatment; 28 had robotic-assisted myomectomies; 208 had open, abdominal myomectomies; and 16 had uterine fibroid embolization (UFE). Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.

After the researchers adjusted for age, body mass index, and parity, there were no statistically significant differences in miscarriage rates among the three groups (31% after UFE, 29% after robotic myomectomy, and 22% after abdominal myomectomy).

Open cases had the largest dominant fibroid at a mean of 8.5 cm, the most fibroids removed at 4.5, and the highest rate of cavity entry, 42%. Even so, at 22%, open cases were the least likely to miscarry.

Uterine size, specimen weight, time from procedure to pregnancy, and fibroid location didn’t seem to matter otherwise. The only risk factors that reached statistical significance were among women who had myomectomies; an increasing number of uterine cuts (odds ratio, 1.558; P = .004) and fibroids removed (OR, 1.11; P = .033) increased the odds of miscarriage.

More than 40% of women in the UFE group had previous fibroid surgery, versus 5% among women who had myomectomies. UFE women also were far more likely to have had a previous birth (50% versus 17%), but less likely to have subserosal fibroids (13% versus 33%), and their dominant fibroid was a few centimeters smaller.

Subjects were in their mid-30s, on average, with a mean body mass index of about 28 kg/m². Just over 40% of the women who had myomectomies were white, versus 19% of women who had UFE.

There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Glaser LM et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 160

LAS VEGAS – It’s the number of uterine incisions and fibroids removed that increase the risk of miscarriage after fibroid treatment, not the type of procedure, according to a review of 252 cases at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Surgeons feel terrible when a woman loses a pregnancy after fibroid treatment, and wonder if they “caused it, or if it was just a bad uterus or a bad initial pathology,” said lead investigator Laura M. Glaser, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice in Lake Forest, Ill.

Her study, which was presented at a meeting sponsored by AAGL, suggests that miscarriage occurs mostly from complex pathology, as indicated by the number of fibroids and the degree of uterine cutting needed to remove them. The team reviewed outcomes among women who conceived after treatment; 28 had robotic-assisted myomectomies; 208 had open, abdominal myomectomies; and 16 had uterine fibroid embolization (UFE). Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.

After the researchers adjusted for age, body mass index, and parity, there were no statistically significant differences in miscarriage rates among the three groups (31% after UFE, 29% after robotic myomectomy, and 22% after abdominal myomectomy).

Open cases had the largest dominant fibroid at a mean of 8.5 cm, the most fibroids removed at 4.5, and the highest rate of cavity entry, 42%. Even so, at 22%, open cases were the least likely to miscarry.

Uterine size, specimen weight, time from procedure to pregnancy, and fibroid location didn’t seem to matter otherwise. The only risk factors that reached statistical significance were among women who had myomectomies; an increasing number of uterine cuts (odds ratio, 1.558; P = .004) and fibroids removed (OR, 1.11; P = .033) increased the odds of miscarriage.

More than 40% of women in the UFE group had previous fibroid surgery, versus 5% among women who had myomectomies. UFE women also were far more likely to have had a previous birth (50% versus 17%), but less likely to have subserosal fibroids (13% versus 33%), and their dominant fibroid was a few centimeters smaller.

Subjects were in their mid-30s, on average, with a mean body mass index of about 28 kg/m². Just over 40% of the women who had myomectomies were white, versus 19% of women who had UFE.

There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Glaser LM et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 160

At the 2018 Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, Tommaso Falcone, MD, Chief of Staff, Chief Academic Officer, and Medical Director at Cleveland Clinic London, England, addressed the status of tissue morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy after several years’ controversy—noting that the specialty’s professional societies all support use of the technique, with precautions and in selected patients.

Morcellation history

Should electromechanical (‘power’) morcellation of tissue be a tool for performing minimally invasive hysterectomy and myomectomy? If so, what are the risks and benefits of using this tool, first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1995?

The matter came under intense scrutiny and debate in 2014 as concerns rose about the potential of power morcellation to disseminate intraperitoneal malignancy in women with occult cancer (an estimated 1 in 370 women who undergo power morcellation during a minimally invasive hysterectomy have uterine cancer¹). Early that year, the FDA moved to strongly discourage use of power morcellators for removing uterine fibroids.²

The aftermath, however, was that there were problems with the FDA’s [2014] statement, Dr. Falcone pointed out. In a study by Siedhoff and colleagues of a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 women with fibroids, for example, an abdominal approach resulted in more hysterectomy-related deaths and surgery-related complications than did a laparoscopic procedure with morcellation.³

Balancing risks and benefits of MIS

After continuing study of the risks presented by morcellation, the question today is: How do we balance preventing dissemination of cancer against diminishing the significant benefits of minimally invasive surgery, as surgical technique has been modified to avoid morcellation—including, Dr. Falcone said, by increased use of mini lap (i.e., extending the laparoscopy incision) tissue extraction, decreased use of supracervical hysterectomy, and a move to open approaches.

In fact, Dr. Falcone noted, power morcellation is banned in many institutions, having been replaced by scalpel, extraperitoneal, or in-bag morcellation. Last year, after further analysis, the FDA reiterated its recommendation against use of power morcellators to remove fibroids in most women.⁴
 

Continue to: Morcellation decisions

Dr. Falcone pointed out that, at the Cleveland Clinic, morcellation is not performed in postmenopausal women, and for several other contraindications, including a history of >2 years of tamoxifen therapy; history of pelvic radiation; history of childhood retinoblastoma; personal history of hereditary leiomyomatosis or renal cell carcinoma; and the presence of a cancer-positive tissue specimen. Morcellation is not performed unless endometrial adenocarcinoma has been ruled out. The decision-making process when electing to use tissue extraction includes whether to use contained or noncontained morcellation; whether to favor knife excision over power morcellation; and, when using a mini lap approach, whether to proceed via the umbilicus or suprapubically.

Complications of morcellation include direct injury by the morcellator; dissemination, as noted, of tissue; ‘upstaging’ of uterine sarcoma, with a worsening prognosis; seeding of parasitic fibroids; and reoperation with laparotomy and extensive multi-organ resection to clear disease (3 patients in a published report).⁵

An important advancement in the use of morcellation in minimally invasive hysterectomy or myomectomy has been the development of contained systems for morcellating—generally a plastic specimen bag, sometimes pulled through the port and insufflated. Dr. Falcone’s presentation included video presentations of this important, and still evolving, technology. Whether these contained systems improve survival, and whether using them in a vaginal approach makes any difference, remain uncertain, however. Furthermore, some spillage from bags is inevitable—although how much spillage is clinically significant is open to question.

Takeaways

Dr. Falcone concluded with key points to guide the surgeon’s decision on whether to proceed with morcellation:

• There are no comparative data on which technique [of tissue removal] is best.
• Tissue spill will occur in uncontained morcellation—this is intrinsic to the device.
• Even with the current generation of tissue bags, leakage is common and puncture is possible.

If you choose to continue to use power morcellation, your decision is supported by the fact that all the professional societies still support it, Dr. Falcone noted. Furthermore, he pointed out that it is important to look to the standard of care in your community regarding risks and benefits before proceeding.

Last, the advantages and risks of morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy should be part of an in-depth discussion between patient and surgeon prior to the procedure. And you must, Dr. Falcone emphasized, obtain specific informed consent.

At the 2018 Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, Tommaso Falcone, MD, Chief of Staff, Chief Academic Officer, and Medical Director at Cleveland Clinic London, England, addressed the status of tissue morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy after several years’ controversy—noting that the specialty’s professional societies all support use of the technique, with precautions and in selected patients.

Morcellation history

Should electromechanical (‘power’) morcellation of tissue be a tool for performing minimally invasive hysterectomy and myomectomy? If so, what are the risks and benefits of using this tool, first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1995?

The matter came under intense scrutiny and debate in 2014 as concerns rose about the potential of power morcellation to disseminate intraperitoneal malignancy in women with occult cancer (an estimated 1 in 370 women who undergo power morcellation during a minimally invasive hysterectomy have uterine cancer¹). Early that year, the FDA moved to strongly discourage use of power morcellators for removing uterine fibroids.²

The aftermath, however, was that there were problems with the FDA’s [2014] statement, Dr. Falcone pointed out. In a study by Siedhoff and colleagues of a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 women with fibroids, for example, an abdominal approach resulted in more hysterectomy-related deaths and surgery-related complications than did a laparoscopic procedure with morcellation.³

Balancing risks and benefits of MIS

After continuing study of the risks presented by morcellation, the question today is: How do we balance preventing dissemination of cancer against diminishing the significant benefits of minimally invasive surgery, as surgical technique has been modified to avoid morcellation—including, Dr. Falcone said, by increased use of mini lap (i.e., extending the laparoscopy incision) tissue extraction, decreased use of supracervical hysterectomy, and a move to open approaches.

In fact, Dr. Falcone noted, power morcellation is banned in many institutions, having been replaced by scalpel, extraperitoneal, or in-bag morcellation. Last year, after further analysis, the FDA reiterated its recommendation against use of power morcellators to remove fibroids in most women.⁴
 

Continue to: Morcellation decisions

Dr. Falcone pointed out that, at the Cleveland Clinic, morcellation is not performed in postmenopausal women, and for several other contraindications, including a history of >2 years of tamoxifen therapy; history of pelvic radiation; history of childhood retinoblastoma; personal history of hereditary leiomyomatosis or renal cell carcinoma; and the presence of a cancer-positive tissue specimen. Morcellation is not performed unless endometrial adenocarcinoma has been ruled out. The decision-making process when electing to use tissue extraction includes whether to use contained or noncontained morcellation; whether to favor knife excision over power morcellation; and, when using a mini lap approach, whether to proceed via the umbilicus or suprapubically.

Complications of morcellation include direct injury by the morcellator; dissemination, as noted, of tissue; ‘upstaging’ of uterine sarcoma, with a worsening prognosis; seeding of parasitic fibroids; and reoperation with laparotomy and extensive multi-organ resection to clear disease (3 patients in a published report).⁵

An important advancement in the use of morcellation in minimally invasive hysterectomy or myomectomy has been the development of contained systems for morcellating—generally a plastic specimen bag, sometimes pulled through the port and insufflated. Dr. Falcone’s presentation included video presentations of this important, and still evolving, technology. Whether these contained systems improve survival, and whether using them in a vaginal approach makes any difference, remain uncertain, however. Furthermore, some spillage from bags is inevitable—although how much spillage is clinically significant is open to question.

Takeaways

Dr. Falcone concluded with key points to guide the surgeon’s decision on whether to proceed with morcellation:

• There are no comparative data on which technique [of tissue removal] is best.
• Tissue spill will occur in uncontained morcellation—this is intrinsic to the device.
• Even with the current generation of tissue bags, leakage is common and puncture is possible.

If you choose to continue to use power morcellation, your decision is supported by the fact that all the professional societies still support it, Dr. Falcone noted. Furthermore, he pointed out that it is important to look to the standard of care in your community regarding risks and benefits before proceeding.

Last, the advantages and risks of morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy should be part of an in-depth discussion between patient and surgeon prior to the procedure. And you must, Dr. Falcone emphasized, obtain specific informed consent.

At the 2018 Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, Tommaso Falcone, MD, Chief of Staff, Chief Academic Officer, and Medical Director at Cleveland Clinic London, England, addressed the status of tissue morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy after several years’ controversy—noting that the specialty’s professional societies all support use of the technique, with precautions and in selected patients.

Morcellation history

Should electromechanical (‘power’) morcellation of tissue be a tool for performing minimally invasive hysterectomy and myomectomy? If so, what are the risks and benefits of using this tool, first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1995?

The matter came under intense scrutiny and debate in 2014 as concerns rose about the potential of power morcellation to disseminate intraperitoneal malignancy in women with occult cancer (an estimated 1 in 370 women who undergo power morcellation during a minimally invasive hysterectomy have uterine cancer¹). Early that year, the FDA moved to strongly discourage use of power morcellators for removing uterine fibroids.²

The aftermath, however, was that there were problems with the FDA’s [2014] statement, Dr. Falcone pointed out. In a study by Siedhoff and colleagues of a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 women with fibroids, for example, an abdominal approach resulted in more hysterectomy-related deaths and surgery-related complications than did a laparoscopic procedure with morcellation.³

Balancing risks and benefits of MIS

After continuing study of the risks presented by morcellation, the question today is: How do we balance preventing dissemination of cancer against diminishing the significant benefits of minimally invasive surgery, as surgical technique has been modified to avoid morcellation—including, Dr. Falcone said, by increased use of mini lap (i.e., extending the laparoscopy incision) tissue extraction, decreased use of supracervical hysterectomy, and a move to open approaches.

In fact, Dr. Falcone noted, power morcellation is banned in many institutions, having been replaced by scalpel, extraperitoneal, or in-bag morcellation. Last year, after further analysis, the FDA reiterated its recommendation against use of power morcellators to remove fibroids in most women.⁴
 

Continue to: Morcellation decisions

Dr. Falcone pointed out that, at the Cleveland Clinic, morcellation is not performed in postmenopausal women, and for several other contraindications, including a history of >2 years of tamoxifen therapy; history of pelvic radiation; history of childhood retinoblastoma; personal history of hereditary leiomyomatosis or renal cell carcinoma; and the presence of a cancer-positive tissue specimen. Morcellation is not performed unless endometrial adenocarcinoma has been ruled out. The decision-making process when electing to use tissue extraction includes whether to use contained or noncontained morcellation; whether to favor knife excision over power morcellation; and, when using a mini lap approach, whether to proceed via the umbilicus or suprapubically.

Complications of morcellation include direct injury by the morcellator; dissemination, as noted, of tissue; ‘upstaging’ of uterine sarcoma, with a worsening prognosis; seeding of parasitic fibroids; and reoperation with laparotomy and extensive multi-organ resection to clear disease (3 patients in a published report).⁵

An important advancement in the use of morcellation in minimally invasive hysterectomy or myomectomy has been the development of contained systems for morcellating—generally a plastic specimen bag, sometimes pulled through the port and insufflated. Dr. Falcone’s presentation included video presentations of this important, and still evolving, technology. Whether these contained systems improve survival, and whether using them in a vaginal approach makes any difference, remain uncertain, however. Furthermore, some spillage from bags is inevitable—although how much spillage is clinically significant is open to question.

Takeaways

Dr. Falcone concluded with key points to guide the surgeon’s decision on whether to proceed with morcellation:

• There are no comparative data on which technique [of tissue removal] is best.
• Tissue spill will occur in uncontained morcellation—this is intrinsic to the device.
• Even with the current generation of tissue bags, leakage is common and puncture is possible.

If you choose to continue to use power morcellation, your decision is supported by the fact that all the professional societies still support it, Dr. Falcone noted. Furthermore, he pointed out that it is important to look to the standard of care in your community regarding risks and benefits before proceeding.

Last, the advantages and risks of morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy should be part of an in-depth discussion between patient and surgeon prior to the procedure. And you must, Dr. Falcone emphasized, obtain specific informed consent.

LAS VEGAS – It would be nice if surgeons could know beforehand how long robotic laparoscopic myomectomies will take, according to Peter Movilla, MD, a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery fellow at Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Best guesses are sometimes wrong, and it’s not uncommon for robotic cases to go longer than expected, especially when they have to be converted to an open approach.

Among other problems, going long backs up operating room (OR)scheduling and makes families impatient. Also, if it was known beforehand that a robotic case might take 5 hours, patients could be offered a quicker open procedure, especially if they are not good candidates for prolonged pneumoperitoneum.

After a case went past 6 hours at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), when Dr. Movilla was an ob.gyn. resident, he wanted to find a better way.

“I saw that we were not the best at guessing how long these surgeries were going to take, and thought maybe we could make prediction a little better by [incorporating] preoperative factors” in a structured way. “I wanted to create something that would give us an answer of how long it will take,” he said at a meeting sponsored by AAGL.

So he and his colleagues reviewed 126 robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomies at UCSF. The mean operative time from skin incision to closure was 213 minutes, mean specimen weight 264.4 g, mean dominant fibroid diameter 8.5 cm, and mean number of fibroids removed 2.5. Four cases (3%) were converted to open laparotomy.

The team divided the cases by how long they took; 20% were under 3 hours, 70% took 3-5 hours; and 10% went over 5 hours. “Five hours is a long time to be in the OR,” especially when a case could have been done open, Dr. Movilla said.

Length of surgery correlated with 7 of the 21 preoperative factors considered on multivariate logistic regression. Cases tended to be longer in younger women and in women with diabetes, and when surgeons had less experience. There was a trend toward longer cases with higher body mass indices, but it was not statistically significant.

Having three or more fibroids on preoperative imaging and a larger number of fibroids over 3 cm were predictive of operations longer than 3 hours. However, the strongest predictors of long cases were uterine volume and the diameter of the largest fibroid, a mean of 532.4 cm³ and 8.8 cm, respectively, in cases over 5 hours. Posterior and intramural fibroids also increased operative time, but, again, the trends were not statistically significant.

The team put it all together in a risk calculator they tested against their subjects’ actual surgery times. The model tended to underestimate very short and very long cases at either end of the curve, but overall the fit was “not too bad,” and the more cases that are added to the model, the more accurate it will get, Dr. Movilla said.

There was no external funding for the work, and Dr. Movilla had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Movilla P et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 69.

LAS VEGAS – It would be nice if surgeons could know beforehand how long robotic laparoscopic myomectomies will take, according to Peter Movilla, MD, a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery fellow at Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Best guesses are sometimes wrong, and it’s not uncommon for robotic cases to go longer than expected, especially when they have to be converted to an open approach.

Among other problems, going long backs up operating room (OR)scheduling and makes families impatient. Also, if it was known beforehand that a robotic case might take 5 hours, patients could be offered a quicker open procedure, especially if they are not good candidates for prolonged pneumoperitoneum.

After a case went past 6 hours at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), when Dr. Movilla was an ob.gyn. resident, he wanted to find a better way.

“I saw that we were not the best at guessing how long these surgeries were going to take, and thought maybe we could make prediction a little better by [incorporating] preoperative factors” in a structured way. “I wanted to create something that would give us an answer of how long it will take,” he said at a meeting sponsored by AAGL.

So he and his colleagues reviewed 126 robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomies at UCSF. The mean operative time from skin incision to closure was 213 minutes, mean specimen weight 264.4 g, mean dominant fibroid diameter 8.5 cm, and mean number of fibroids removed 2.5. Four cases (3%) were converted to open laparotomy.

The team divided the cases by how long they took; 20% were under 3 hours, 70% took 3-5 hours; and 10% went over 5 hours. “Five hours is a long time to be in the OR,” especially when a case could have been done open, Dr. Movilla said.

Length of surgery correlated with 7 of the 21 preoperative factors considered on multivariate logistic regression. Cases tended to be longer in younger women and in women with diabetes, and when surgeons had less experience. There was a trend toward longer cases with higher body mass indices, but it was not statistically significant.

Having three or more fibroids on preoperative imaging and a larger number of fibroids over 3 cm were predictive of operations longer than 3 hours. However, the strongest predictors of long cases were uterine volume and the diameter of the largest fibroid, a mean of 532.4 cm³ and 8.8 cm, respectively, in cases over 5 hours. Posterior and intramural fibroids also increased operative time, but, again, the trends were not statistically significant.

The team put it all together in a risk calculator they tested against their subjects’ actual surgery times. The model tended to underestimate very short and very long cases at either end of the curve, but overall the fit was “not too bad,” and the more cases that are added to the model, the more accurate it will get, Dr. Movilla said.

There was no external funding for the work, and Dr. Movilla had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Movilla P et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 69.

LAS VEGAS – It would be nice if surgeons could know beforehand how long robotic laparoscopic myomectomies will take, according to Peter Movilla, MD, a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery fellow at Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Best guesses are sometimes wrong, and it’s not uncommon for robotic cases to go longer than expected, especially when they have to be converted to an open approach.

Among other problems, going long backs up operating room (OR)scheduling and makes families impatient. Also, if it was known beforehand that a robotic case might take 5 hours, patients could be offered a quicker open procedure, especially if they are not good candidates for prolonged pneumoperitoneum.

After a case went past 6 hours at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), when Dr. Movilla was an ob.gyn. resident, he wanted to find a better way.

“I saw that we were not the best at guessing how long these surgeries were going to take, and thought maybe we could make prediction a little better by [incorporating] preoperative factors” in a structured way. “I wanted to create something that would give us an answer of how long it will take,” he said at a meeting sponsored by AAGL.

So he and his colleagues reviewed 126 robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomies at UCSF. The mean operative time from skin incision to closure was 213 minutes, mean specimen weight 264.4 g, mean dominant fibroid diameter 8.5 cm, and mean number of fibroids removed 2.5. Four cases (3%) were converted to open laparotomy.

The team divided the cases by how long they took; 20% were under 3 hours, 70% took 3-5 hours; and 10% went over 5 hours. “Five hours is a long time to be in the OR,” especially when a case could have been done open, Dr. Movilla said.

Length of surgery correlated with 7 of the 21 preoperative factors considered on multivariate logistic regression. Cases tended to be longer in younger women and in women with diabetes, and when surgeons had less experience. There was a trend toward longer cases with higher body mass indices, but it was not statistically significant.

Having three or more fibroids on preoperative imaging and a larger number of fibroids over 3 cm were predictive of operations longer than 3 hours. However, the strongest predictors of long cases were uterine volume and the diameter of the largest fibroid, a mean of 532.4 cm³ and 8.8 cm, respectively, in cases over 5 hours. Posterior and intramural fibroids also increased operative time, but, again, the trends were not statistically significant.

The team put it all together in a risk calculator they tested against their subjects’ actual surgery times. The model tended to underestimate very short and very long cases at either end of the curve, but overall the fit was “not too bad,” and the more cases that are added to the model, the more accurate it will get, Dr. Movilla said.

There was no external funding for the work, and Dr. Movilla had no disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Movilla P et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 69.