Women's Health

This year, the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. again ranked as the top hospital for gynecology, according to U.S. News and World Report, which released its annual rankings today.

The top five hospitals for gynecology were the same this year and were in the same order. In second place again this year was Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, followed by the Cleveland Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Rounding out the top 10 were (6) Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Virginia; (7) the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital; (8) Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, California, which tied for the ninth spot.

U.S. News compared more than 4,750 medical centers nationwide in 15 specialties. Of those, 531 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care.

In 12 of the specialties, including gynecology, rankings are determined by a data-driven analysis that combines performance measures in structure, process, and outcomes. Rankings in three other specialties – ophthalmology, psychiatry, and rheumatology – rely on expert opinion alone, according to the U.S. News methodology report.

The top 20 hospitals overall were also named to the Honor Roll.

Mayo Clinic was again no. 1 on the honor roll, a ranking it has held for 6 years in a row, according to a press release.

In other top specialties, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ranked no. 1 in cancer; the Cleveland Clinic is no. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery; and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, is no. 1 in orthopedics.

A full list of rankings is available on the magazine’s website.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year, the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. again ranked as the top hospital for gynecology, according to U.S. News and World Report, which released its annual rankings today.

The top five hospitals for gynecology were the same this year and were in the same order. In second place again this year was Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, followed by the Cleveland Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Rounding out the top 10 were (6) Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Virginia; (7) the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital; (8) Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, California, which tied for the ninth spot.

U.S. News compared more than 4,750 medical centers nationwide in 15 specialties. Of those, 531 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care.

In 12 of the specialties, including gynecology, rankings are determined by a data-driven analysis that combines performance measures in structure, process, and outcomes. Rankings in three other specialties – ophthalmology, psychiatry, and rheumatology – rely on expert opinion alone, according to the U.S. News methodology report.

The top 20 hospitals overall were also named to the Honor Roll.

Mayo Clinic was again no. 1 on the honor roll, a ranking it has held for 6 years in a row, according to a press release.

In other top specialties, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ranked no. 1 in cancer; the Cleveland Clinic is no. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery; and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, is no. 1 in orthopedics.

A full list of rankings is available on the magazine’s website.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This year, the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. again ranked as the top hospital for gynecology, according to U.S. News and World Report, which released its annual rankings today.

The top five hospitals for gynecology were the same this year and were in the same order. In second place again this year was Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, followed by the Cleveland Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Rounding out the top 10 were (6) Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Virginia; (7) the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital; (8) Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, California, which tied for the ninth spot.

U.S. News compared more than 4,750 medical centers nationwide in 15 specialties. Of those, 531 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals on the basis of their strong performance in multiple areas of care.

In 12 of the specialties, including gynecology, rankings are determined by a data-driven analysis that combines performance measures in structure, process, and outcomes. Rankings in three other specialties – ophthalmology, psychiatry, and rheumatology – rely on expert opinion alone, according to the U.S. News methodology report.

The top 20 hospitals overall were also named to the Honor Roll.

Mayo Clinic was again no. 1 on the honor roll, a ranking it has held for 6 years in a row, according to a press release.

In other top specialties, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ranked no. 1 in cancer; the Cleveland Clinic is no. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery; and the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, is no. 1 in orthopedics.

A full list of rankings is available on the magazine’s website.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, an HIV prevention trial that was limited to adolescent girls and young women found that, given sufficient support, girls will use either daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or the vaginal dapivirine ring to protect themselves from HIV.

The secret, said Gonasagrie Nair, MBChB, faculty of medicine and health sciences at Stellenbosch University, Zimbabwe, is offering intensive wraparound services to support teenagers – a lesson that may be useful as adolescent and family medicine professionals in the United States begin to roll out HIV prevention in their clinics.

This is important in the United States because cisgender Black women make up 60% of all new HIV cases in the United States while accounting for just 14% of the overall U.S. population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that only about 1% of Black Americans who could benefit from PrEP have access to it.

“Younger women and adolescent girls in particular face a number of cultural and social challenges that impact their ability to make decisions related to their own health,” said Dr. Nair, who presented the data at the International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference 2021. “The adherence support provided by this study empowered them to make choices and stick to these choices,” she said.

In total, 247 women and girls aged 16 to 21 who were without HIV were enrolled in the Reversing the Epidemic in Africa with Choices in HIV Prevention (REACH) trial in two sites in South Africa and one each in Uganda and Zimbabwe beginning in February 2019. One-third of the participants were minors; the average age was 18.2 years.

The women were good candidates for PrEP. More than 1 in 3 of the women started the study with a sexually transmitted infection (STI), the most prevalent of which was chlamydia. This is often a good marker for condomless sex. Of the participants, 89% had a primary sex partner; a quarter of those thought their partner was having sex with other people. Only 7% of participants reported being very worried about acquiring HIV. More than 1 in 3 (39%) weren’t worried about HIV at all. This conforms to previous data suggesting that those who could most benefit from PrEP often don’t perceive their own vulnerability.

In the study, the women were randomly assigned two groups. In one group, the participants used the dapivirine ring for 6 months; in the other, participants used oral PrEP for 6 months. The participants then swapped prevention methods and used the alternative method for 6 more months. After a year of trying both methods, the women will be asked to choose one of the two prevention method or to stop PrEP altogether. At the IAS conference, the researchers reported interim data from the first year of the study, before the girls had the opportunity to choose for themselves.

During that first year, girls received intensive adherence support, including daily or weekly text check-ins, phone check-ins, peer buddy support, additional onsite counseling visits, access to adherence support groups, participation in online support groups via apps such as WhatsApp, and in-person social events designed to empower young women and to teach them skills. Support included discussion of adherence, contraceptives, and STIs. In addition, when girls came in for study visits, staff provided feedback on how adherent the girls had been, as determined on the basis of residual levels of dapivirine in the rings or, with regard to oral pills, drug levels as determined with blood spots.

Girls were considered to have had high adherence if they were found to have oral PrEP concentrations equivalent to four or more doses per week or if residual levels of dapivirine in their rings were 0.1071 mg/d. Moderate adherence was the equivalent of one to three doses of oral PrEP a week or dapivirine levels between 0.0321 mg/d and 0.1071 mg/d.

In total, 95.6% of ring users showed some adherence to the ring. Of those, adherence was high for 50.2%; 49.8% used the ring perfectly. For oral PrEP, 98.5% showed some level of PrEP use; for 58.6%, lab results suggested adherence high enough to provide protection from HIV, and 22% took their pills at least six times a week. Between the two arms, 54.3% of all participants used the medication sufficiently to be protected from HIV.

One person acquired HIV during the study. Dr. Nair did not say which study arm that participant was in or how adherent that person has been to their prevention method.

That level of adherence is on par with studies in the United States, which have found 56% adherence to PrEP among adolescent and young men who have sex with men. But the level of adherence is far higher than has been found in other studies that tested oral PrEP among women who did not have a partner with HIV. In particular, the VOICE and FEM-PrEP trials were both stopped early for lack of adherence. In those placebo-controlled oral-PrEP trials, fewer than 25% of participants used the oral prevention pills. Although adherence to the vaginal ring was estimated to be 61% for women older than 25 in the ASPIRE trial, it was effectively zero among women aged 18 to 21 years. Adherence has been the “bugaboo of efficacy for PrEP in young women,” said Judith Auerbach, PhD, independent science and policy consultant and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. But health care professionals have a long way to go to support young people in general in using PrEP.

“Yes, this shows improvement compared to previous studies,” Dr. Auerbach told this news organization. “But is it sufficient to have an epidemiological impact at the population level?”

Medical Advocacy and Outreach (MAO) is an HIV clinic and services program in Montgomery, Alabama, that offers a clinic specifically for some of their 144 clients to receive oral PrEP. In addition to in-person testing, MAO offers home HIV testing and lab work and televisits to support the college students they serve in taking PrEP whether they’re at school or at home on break. Currently, MAO provides a series of support groups and other social support programs for their clients living with HIV, but there are none for those receiving PrEP. The organization is in the process of hiring a social worker for the PrEP side of the clinic.

Until that person is on board, “I’m their support system in an unofficial capacity,” Shericka Williams, MPH, told this news organization. She runs education programs at MAO and handles all the phone calls from PrEP clients. “My title changes a lot, but the one I like to go with most often is the PrEP navigator,” she said.

She said she was intrigued by the dapivirine ring and oral PrEP data but said that currently, the women they serve are still learning that PrEP is for them, too. The women report that all the ads and all the information they receive is aimed at gay or bisexual men or transgender women. It takes a while for them to recognize that they could benefit, so a lot of the work that Ms. Williams does is focused on explaining the benefit of PrEP.

In MAO, the number of women receiving PrEP fluctuates more than for men. Mostly, women start PrEP because of they are in a relationship with someone who receives HIV care from MAO’s other wing – women who potentially would experience less vulnerability to HIV if their partners had undetectable viral loads. The other reason women take it is because they suspect that their partner is cheating or because they are in abusive relationships in which they want their partner to use a condom but the partner won’t. As in the PrEP trials, they often see women discontinue PrEP when they leave those relationships. In part, her job is to educate women regarding all the ways PrEP could serve them.

“Most of the time, they’re just no longer in that relationship, and they’re just taking some time for themselves,” she said in an interview. “We definitely try to bring up other reasons to stay on PrEP, but we don’t want to seem like we’re bullying someone to stay on it.”

Dr. Nair, Dr. Auerbach, and Ms. Williams report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, an HIV prevention trial that was limited to adolescent girls and young women found that, given sufficient support, girls will use either daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or the vaginal dapivirine ring to protect themselves from HIV.

The secret, said Gonasagrie Nair, MBChB, faculty of medicine and health sciences at Stellenbosch University, Zimbabwe, is offering intensive wraparound services to support teenagers – a lesson that may be useful as adolescent and family medicine professionals in the United States begin to roll out HIV prevention in their clinics.

This is important in the United States because cisgender Black women make up 60% of all new HIV cases in the United States while accounting for just 14% of the overall U.S. population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that only about 1% of Black Americans who could benefit from PrEP have access to it.

“Younger women and adolescent girls in particular face a number of cultural and social challenges that impact their ability to make decisions related to their own health,” said Dr. Nair, who presented the data at the International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference 2021. “The adherence support provided by this study empowered them to make choices and stick to these choices,” she said.

In total, 247 women and girls aged 16 to 21 who were without HIV were enrolled in the Reversing the Epidemic in Africa with Choices in HIV Prevention (REACH) trial in two sites in South Africa and one each in Uganda and Zimbabwe beginning in February 2019. One-third of the participants were minors; the average age was 18.2 years.

The women were good candidates for PrEP. More than 1 in 3 of the women started the study with a sexually transmitted infection (STI), the most prevalent of which was chlamydia. This is often a good marker for condomless sex. Of the participants, 89% had a primary sex partner; a quarter of those thought their partner was having sex with other people. Only 7% of participants reported being very worried about acquiring HIV. More than 1 in 3 (39%) weren’t worried about HIV at all. This conforms to previous data suggesting that those who could most benefit from PrEP often don’t perceive their own vulnerability.

In the study, the women were randomly assigned two groups. In one group, the participants used the dapivirine ring for 6 months; in the other, participants used oral PrEP for 6 months. The participants then swapped prevention methods and used the alternative method for 6 more months. After a year of trying both methods, the women will be asked to choose one of the two prevention method or to stop PrEP altogether. At the IAS conference, the researchers reported interim data from the first year of the study, before the girls had the opportunity to choose for themselves.

During that first year, girls received intensive adherence support, including daily or weekly text check-ins, phone check-ins, peer buddy support, additional onsite counseling visits, access to adherence support groups, participation in online support groups via apps such as WhatsApp, and in-person social events designed to empower young women and to teach them skills. Support included discussion of adherence, contraceptives, and STIs. In addition, when girls came in for study visits, staff provided feedback on how adherent the girls had been, as determined on the basis of residual levels of dapivirine in the rings or, with regard to oral pills, drug levels as determined with blood spots.

Girls were considered to have had high adherence if they were found to have oral PrEP concentrations equivalent to four or more doses per week or if residual levels of dapivirine in their rings were 0.1071 mg/d. Moderate adherence was the equivalent of one to three doses of oral PrEP a week or dapivirine levels between 0.0321 mg/d and 0.1071 mg/d.

In total, 95.6% of ring users showed some adherence to the ring. Of those, adherence was high for 50.2%; 49.8% used the ring perfectly. For oral PrEP, 98.5% showed some level of PrEP use; for 58.6%, lab results suggested adherence high enough to provide protection from HIV, and 22% took their pills at least six times a week. Between the two arms, 54.3% of all participants used the medication sufficiently to be protected from HIV.

One person acquired HIV during the study. Dr. Nair did not say which study arm that participant was in or how adherent that person has been to their prevention method.

That level of adherence is on par with studies in the United States, which have found 56% adherence to PrEP among adolescent and young men who have sex with men. But the level of adherence is far higher than has been found in other studies that tested oral PrEP among women who did not have a partner with HIV. In particular, the VOICE and FEM-PrEP trials were both stopped early for lack of adherence. In those placebo-controlled oral-PrEP trials, fewer than 25% of participants used the oral prevention pills. Although adherence to the vaginal ring was estimated to be 61% for women older than 25 in the ASPIRE trial, it was effectively zero among women aged 18 to 21 years. Adherence has been the “bugaboo of efficacy for PrEP in young women,” said Judith Auerbach, PhD, independent science and policy consultant and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. But health care professionals have a long way to go to support young people in general in using PrEP.

“Yes, this shows improvement compared to previous studies,” Dr. Auerbach told this news organization. “But is it sufficient to have an epidemiological impact at the population level?”

Medical Advocacy and Outreach (MAO) is an HIV clinic and services program in Montgomery, Alabama, that offers a clinic specifically for some of their 144 clients to receive oral PrEP. In addition to in-person testing, MAO offers home HIV testing and lab work and televisits to support the college students they serve in taking PrEP whether they’re at school or at home on break. Currently, MAO provides a series of support groups and other social support programs for their clients living with HIV, but there are none for those receiving PrEP. The organization is in the process of hiring a social worker for the PrEP side of the clinic.

Until that person is on board, “I’m their support system in an unofficial capacity,” Shericka Williams, MPH, told this news organization. She runs education programs at MAO and handles all the phone calls from PrEP clients. “My title changes a lot, but the one I like to go with most often is the PrEP navigator,” she said.

She said she was intrigued by the dapivirine ring and oral PrEP data but said that currently, the women they serve are still learning that PrEP is for them, too. The women report that all the ads and all the information they receive is aimed at gay or bisexual men or transgender women. It takes a while for them to recognize that they could benefit, so a lot of the work that Ms. Williams does is focused on explaining the benefit of PrEP.

In MAO, the number of women receiving PrEP fluctuates more than for men. Mostly, women start PrEP because of they are in a relationship with someone who receives HIV care from MAO’s other wing – women who potentially would experience less vulnerability to HIV if their partners had undetectable viral loads. The other reason women take it is because they suspect that their partner is cheating or because they are in abusive relationships in which they want their partner to use a condom but the partner won’t. As in the PrEP trials, they often see women discontinue PrEP when they leave those relationships. In part, her job is to educate women regarding all the ways PrEP could serve them.

“Most of the time, they’re just no longer in that relationship, and they’re just taking some time for themselves,” she said in an interview. “We definitely try to bring up other reasons to stay on PrEP, but we don’t want to seem like we’re bullying someone to stay on it.”

Dr. Nair, Dr. Auerbach, and Ms. Williams report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the first time, an HIV prevention trial that was limited to adolescent girls and young women found that, given sufficient support, girls will use either daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or the vaginal dapivirine ring to protect themselves from HIV.

The secret, said Gonasagrie Nair, MBChB, faculty of medicine and health sciences at Stellenbosch University, Zimbabwe, is offering intensive wraparound services to support teenagers – a lesson that may be useful as adolescent and family medicine professionals in the United States begin to roll out HIV prevention in their clinics.

This is important in the United States because cisgender Black women make up 60% of all new HIV cases in the United States while accounting for just 14% of the overall U.S. population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that only about 1% of Black Americans who could benefit from PrEP have access to it.

“Younger women and adolescent girls in particular face a number of cultural and social challenges that impact their ability to make decisions related to their own health,” said Dr. Nair, who presented the data at the International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference 2021. “The adherence support provided by this study empowered them to make choices and stick to these choices,” she said.

In total, 247 women and girls aged 16 to 21 who were without HIV were enrolled in the Reversing the Epidemic in Africa with Choices in HIV Prevention (REACH) trial in two sites in South Africa and one each in Uganda and Zimbabwe beginning in February 2019. One-third of the participants were minors; the average age was 18.2 years.

The women were good candidates for PrEP. More than 1 in 3 of the women started the study with a sexually transmitted infection (STI), the most prevalent of which was chlamydia. This is often a good marker for condomless sex. Of the participants, 89% had a primary sex partner; a quarter of those thought their partner was having sex with other people. Only 7% of participants reported being very worried about acquiring HIV. More than 1 in 3 (39%) weren’t worried about HIV at all. This conforms to previous data suggesting that those who could most benefit from PrEP often don’t perceive their own vulnerability.

In the study, the women were randomly assigned two groups. In one group, the participants used the dapivirine ring for 6 months; in the other, participants used oral PrEP for 6 months. The participants then swapped prevention methods and used the alternative method for 6 more months. After a year of trying both methods, the women will be asked to choose one of the two prevention method or to stop PrEP altogether. At the IAS conference, the researchers reported interim data from the first year of the study, before the girls had the opportunity to choose for themselves.

During that first year, girls received intensive adherence support, including daily or weekly text check-ins, phone check-ins, peer buddy support, additional onsite counseling visits, access to adherence support groups, participation in online support groups via apps such as WhatsApp, and in-person social events designed to empower young women and to teach them skills. Support included discussion of adherence, contraceptives, and STIs. In addition, when girls came in for study visits, staff provided feedback on how adherent the girls had been, as determined on the basis of residual levels of dapivirine in the rings or, with regard to oral pills, drug levels as determined with blood spots.

Girls were considered to have had high adherence if they were found to have oral PrEP concentrations equivalent to four or more doses per week or if residual levels of dapivirine in their rings were 0.1071 mg/d. Moderate adherence was the equivalent of one to three doses of oral PrEP a week or dapivirine levels between 0.0321 mg/d and 0.1071 mg/d.

In total, 95.6% of ring users showed some adherence to the ring. Of those, adherence was high for 50.2%; 49.8% used the ring perfectly. For oral PrEP, 98.5% showed some level of PrEP use; for 58.6%, lab results suggested adherence high enough to provide protection from HIV, and 22% took their pills at least six times a week. Between the two arms, 54.3% of all participants used the medication sufficiently to be protected from HIV.

One person acquired HIV during the study. Dr. Nair did not say which study arm that participant was in or how adherent that person has been to their prevention method.

That level of adherence is on par with studies in the United States, which have found 56% adherence to PrEP among adolescent and young men who have sex with men. But the level of adherence is far higher than has been found in other studies that tested oral PrEP among women who did not have a partner with HIV. In particular, the VOICE and FEM-PrEP trials were both stopped early for lack of adherence. In those placebo-controlled oral-PrEP trials, fewer than 25% of participants used the oral prevention pills. Although adherence to the vaginal ring was estimated to be 61% for women older than 25 in the ASPIRE trial, it was effectively zero among women aged 18 to 21 years. Adherence has been the “bugaboo of efficacy for PrEP in young women,” said Judith Auerbach, PhD, independent science and policy consultant and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. But health care professionals have a long way to go to support young people in general in using PrEP.

“Yes, this shows improvement compared to previous studies,” Dr. Auerbach told this news organization. “But is it sufficient to have an epidemiological impact at the population level?”

Medical Advocacy and Outreach (MAO) is an HIV clinic and services program in Montgomery, Alabama, that offers a clinic specifically for some of their 144 clients to receive oral PrEP. In addition to in-person testing, MAO offers home HIV testing and lab work and televisits to support the college students they serve in taking PrEP whether they’re at school or at home on break. Currently, MAO provides a series of support groups and other social support programs for their clients living with HIV, but there are none for those receiving PrEP. The organization is in the process of hiring a social worker for the PrEP side of the clinic.

Until that person is on board, “I’m their support system in an unofficial capacity,” Shericka Williams, MPH, told this news organization. She runs education programs at MAO and handles all the phone calls from PrEP clients. “My title changes a lot, but the one I like to go with most often is the PrEP navigator,” she said.

She said she was intrigued by the dapivirine ring and oral PrEP data but said that currently, the women they serve are still learning that PrEP is for them, too. The women report that all the ads and all the information they receive is aimed at gay or bisexual men or transgender women. It takes a while for them to recognize that they could benefit, so a lot of the work that Ms. Williams does is focused on explaining the benefit of PrEP.

In MAO, the number of women receiving PrEP fluctuates more than for men. Mostly, women start PrEP because of they are in a relationship with someone who receives HIV care from MAO’s other wing – women who potentially would experience less vulnerability to HIV if their partners had undetectable viral loads. The other reason women take it is because they suspect that their partner is cheating or because they are in abusive relationships in which they want their partner to use a condom but the partner won’t. As in the PrEP trials, they often see women discontinue PrEP when they leave those relationships. In part, her job is to educate women regarding all the ways PrEP could serve them.

“Most of the time, they’re just no longer in that relationship, and they’re just taking some time for themselves,” she said in an interview. “We definitely try to bring up other reasons to stay on PrEP, but we don’t want to seem like we’re bullying someone to stay on it.”

Dr. Nair, Dr. Auerbach, and Ms. Williams report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Over the next 2 months we will dedicate this column to some general tips and pearls from the perspective of a gynecologic oncologist to guide general obstetrician gynecologists in the workup and management of preinvasive or invasive gynecologic diseases. The goal of these recommendations is to minimize misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis and avoid unnecessary or untimely referrals.

Perform biopsy, not Pap smears, on visible cervical and vaginal lesions

The purpose of the Pap smear is to screen asymptomatic patients for cervical dysplasia or microscopic invasive disease. Cytology is an unreliable diagnostic tool for visible, symptomatic lesions in large part because of sampling errors, and the lack of architectural information in cytologic versus histopathologic specimens. Invasive lesions can be mischaracterized as preinvasive on a Pap smear. This can result in delayed diagnosis and unnecessary diagnostic procedures. For example, if a visible, abnormal-appearing, cervical lesion is seen during a routine visit and a Pap smear is performed (rather than a biopsy of the mass), the patient may receive an incorrect preliminary diagnosis of “high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ” as it can be difficult to distinguish invasive carcinoma from carcinoma in situ on cytology. If the patient and provider do not understand the limitations of Pap smears in diagnosing invasive cancers, they may be falsely reassured and possibly delay or abstain from follow-up for an excisional procedure. If she does return for the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP), there might still be unnecessary delays in making referrals and definitive treatment while waiting for results. Radical hysterectomy may not promptly follow because, if performed within 6 weeks of an excisional procedure, it is associated with a significantly higher risk for perioperative complication, and therefore, if the excisional procedure was unnecessary to begin with, there may be additional time lost that need not be.¹

Some clinicians avoid biopsy of visible lesions because they are concerned about bleeding complications that might arise in the office. Straightforward strategies to control bleeding are readily available in most gynecology offices, especially those already equipped for procedures such as LEEP and colposcopy. Prior to performing the biopsy, clinicians should ensure that they have supplies such as gauze sponges and ring forceps or packing forceps, silver nitrate, and ferric subsulfate solution (“Monsel’s solution”) close at hand. In the vast majority of cases, direct pressure for 5 minutes with gauze sponges and ferric subsulfate is highly effective at resolving most bleeding from a cervical or vaginal biopsy site. If this does not bring hemostasis, cautery devices or suture can be employed. If all else fails, be prepared to place vaginal packing (always with the insertion of a urinary Foley catheter to prevent urinary retention). In my experience, this is rarely needed.

Wherever possible, visible cervical or vaginal (or vulvar, see below) lesions should be biopsied for histopathology, sampling representative areas of the most concerning portion, in order to minimize misdiagnosis and expedite referral and definitive treatment. For necrotic-appearing lesions I recommend taking multiple samples of the tumor, as necrotic, nonviable tissue can prevent accurate diagnosis of a cancer. In general, Pap smears should be reserved as screening tests for asymptomatic women without visible pathology.
 

Don’t treat or refer low-grade dysplasia, even if persistent

Increasingly we are understanding that low-grade dysplasia of the lower genital tract (CIN I, VAIN I, VIN I) is less a precursor for cancer, and more a phenomenon of benign HPV-associated changes.² This HPV change may be chronically persistent, may require years of observation and serial Pap smears, and may be a general nuisance for the patient. However, current guidelines do not recommend intervention for low-grade dysplasia of the lower genital tract.² Interventions to resect these lesions can result in morbidity, including perineal pain, vaginal scarring, and cervical stenosis or insufficiency. Given the extremely low risk for progression to cancer, these morbidities do not outweigh any small potential benefit.

When I am conferring with patients who have chronic low-grade dysplasia I spend a great deal of time exploring their understanding of the diagnosis and its pathophysiology, their fears, and their expectation regarding “success” of treatment. I spend the time educating them that this is a sequela of chronic viral infection that will not be eradicated with local surgical excisions, that their cancer risk and need for surveillance would persist even if surgical intervention were offered, and that the side effects of treatment would outweigh any benefit from the small risk of cancer or high-grade dysplasia.

In summary, the treatment of choice for persistent low-grade dysplasia of the lower genital tract is comprehensive patient education, not surgical resection or referral to gynecologic oncology.
 

Repeat sampling if there’s a discordance between imaging and biopsy results

Delay in cancer diagnosis is one of the greatest concerns for front-line gynecology providers. One of the more modifiable strategies to avoid missed or delayed diagnosis is to ensure that there is concordance between clinical findings and testing results. Otherwise said: The results and findings should make sense in aggregate. An example was cited above in which a visible cervical mass demonstrated CIN III on cytologic testing. Another common example is a biopsy result of “scant benign endometrium” in a patient with postmenopausal bleeding and thickened endometrial stripe on ultrasound. In both of these cases there is clear discordance between physical findings and the results of pathology sampling. A pathology report, in all of its black and white certitude, seems like the most reliable source of information. However, always trust your clinical judgment. If the clinical picture is suggesting something far worse than these limited, often random or blind samplings, I recommend repeated or more extensive sampling (for example, dilation and curettage). At the very least, schedule close follow-up with repeated sampling if the symptom or finding persists. The emphasis here is on scheduled follow-up, rather than “p.r.n.,” because a patient who was given a “normal” pathology result to explain her abnormal symptoms may not volunteer that those symptoms are persistent as she may feel that anything sinister was already ruled out. Make certain that you explain the potential for misdiagnosis as the reason for why you would like to see her back shortly to ensure the issue has resolved.

Biopsy vulvar lesions, minimize empiric treatment

Vulvar cancer is notoriously associated with delayed diagnosis. Unfortunately, it is commonplace for gynecologic oncologists to see women who have vulvar cancers that have been empirically treated, sometimes for months or years, with steroids or other topical agents. If a lesion on the vulva is characteristically benign in appearance (such as condyloma or lichen sclerosis), it may be reasonable to start empiric treatment. However, all patients who are treated without biopsy should be rescheduled for a planned follow-up appointment in 2-3 months. If the lesion/area remains unchanged, or worse, the lesion should be biopsied before proceeding with a change in therapy or continued therapy. Once again, don’t rely on patients to return for evaluation if the lesion doesn’t improve. Many patients assume that our first empiric diagnosis is “gospel,” and therefore may not return if the treatment doesn’t work. Meanwhile, providers may assume that patients will know that there is uncertainty in our interpretation and that they will know to report if the initial treatment didn’t work. These assumptions are the recipe for delayed diagnosis. If there is too great a burden on the patient to schedule a return visit because of social or financial reasons then the patient should have a biopsy prior to initiation of treatment. As a rule, empiric treatment is not a good strategy for patients without good access to follow-up.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Sullivan S. et al Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Feb;144(2):294-8.

2. Perkins R .et al J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24(2):102-31.

Over the next 2 months we will dedicate this column to some general tips and pearls from the perspective of a gynecologic oncologist to guide general obstetrician gynecologists in the workup and management of preinvasive or invasive gynecologic diseases. The goal of these recommendations is to minimize misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis and avoid unnecessary or untimely referrals.

Perform biopsy, not Pap smears, on visible cervical and vaginal lesions

The purpose of the Pap smear is to screen asymptomatic patients for cervical dysplasia or microscopic invasive disease. Cytology is an unreliable diagnostic tool for visible, symptomatic lesions in large part because of sampling errors, and the lack of architectural information in cytologic versus histopathologic specimens. Invasive lesions can be mischaracterized as preinvasive on a Pap smear. This can result in delayed diagnosis and unnecessary diagnostic procedures. For example, if a visible, abnormal-appearing, cervical lesion is seen during a routine visit and a Pap smear is performed (rather than a biopsy of the mass), the patient may receive an incorrect preliminary diagnosis of “high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ” as it can be difficult to distinguish invasive carcinoma from carcinoma in situ on cytology. If the patient and provider do not understand the limitations of Pap smears in diagnosing invasive cancers, they may be falsely reassured and possibly delay or abstain from follow-up for an excisional procedure. If she does return for the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP), there might still be unnecessary delays in making referrals and definitive treatment while waiting for results. Radical hysterectomy may not promptly follow because, if performed within 6 weeks of an excisional procedure, it is associated with a significantly higher risk for perioperative complication, and therefore, if the excisional procedure was unnecessary to begin with, there may be additional time lost that need not be.¹

Some clinicians avoid biopsy of visible lesions because they are concerned about bleeding complications that might arise in the office. Straightforward strategies to control bleeding are readily available in most gynecology offices, especially those already equipped for procedures such as LEEP and colposcopy. Prior to performing the biopsy, clinicians should ensure that they have supplies such as gauze sponges and ring forceps or packing forceps, silver nitrate, and ferric subsulfate solution (“Monsel’s solution”) close at hand. In the vast majority of cases, direct pressure for 5 minutes with gauze sponges and ferric subsulfate is highly effective at resolving most bleeding from a cervical or vaginal biopsy site. If this does not bring hemostasis, cautery devices or suture can be employed. If all else fails, be prepared to place vaginal packing (always with the insertion of a urinary Foley catheter to prevent urinary retention). In my experience, this is rarely needed.

Wherever possible, visible cervical or vaginal (or vulvar, see below) lesions should be biopsied for histopathology, sampling representative areas of the most concerning portion, in order to minimize misdiagnosis and expedite referral and definitive treatment. For necrotic-appearing lesions I recommend taking multiple samples of the tumor, as necrotic, nonviable tissue can prevent accurate diagnosis of a cancer. In general, Pap smears should be reserved as screening tests for asymptomatic women without visible pathology.
 

Don’t treat or refer low-grade dysplasia, even if persistent

Increasingly we are understanding that low-grade dysplasia of the lower genital tract (CIN I, VAIN I, VIN I) is less a precursor for cancer, and more a phenomenon of benign HPV-associated changes.² This HPV change may be chronically persistent, may require years of observation and serial Pap smears, and may be a general nuisance for the patient. However, current guidelines do not recommend intervention for low-grade dysplasia of the lower genital tract.² Interventions to resect these lesions can result in morbidity, including perineal pain, vaginal scarring, and cervical stenosis or insufficiency. Given the extremely low risk for progression to cancer, these morbidities do not outweigh any small potential benefit.

When I am conferring with patients who have chronic low-grade dysplasia I spend a great deal of time exploring their understanding of the diagnosis and its pathophysiology, their fears, and their expectation regarding “success” of treatment. I spend the time educating them that this is a sequela of chronic viral infection that will not be eradicated with local surgical excisions, that their cancer risk and need for surveillance would persist even if surgical intervention were offered, and that the side effects of treatment would outweigh any benefit from the small risk of cancer or high-grade dysplasia.

In summary, the treatment of choice for persistent low-grade dysplasia of the lower genital tract is comprehensive patient education, not surgical resection or referral to gynecologic oncology.
 

Repeat sampling if there’s a discordance between imaging and biopsy results

Delay in cancer diagnosis is one of the greatest concerns for front-line gynecology providers. One of the more modifiable strategies to avoid missed or delayed diagnosis is to ensure that there is concordance between clinical findings and testing results. Otherwise said: The results and findings should make sense in aggregate. An example was cited above in which a visible cervical mass demonstrated CIN III on cytologic testing. Another common example is a biopsy result of “scant benign endometrium” in a patient with postmenopausal bleeding and thickened endometrial stripe on ultrasound. In both of these cases there is clear discordance between physical findings and the results of pathology sampling. A pathology report, in all of its black and white certitude, seems like the most reliable source of information. However, always trust your clinical judgment. If the clinical picture is suggesting something far worse than these limited, often random or blind samplings, I recommend repeated or more extensive sampling (for example, dilation and curettage). At the very least, schedule close follow-up with repeated sampling if the symptom or finding persists. The emphasis here is on scheduled follow-up, rather than “p.r.n.,” because a patient who was given a “normal” pathology result to explain her abnormal symptoms may not volunteer that those symptoms are persistent as she may feel that anything sinister was already ruled out. Make certain that you explain the potential for misdiagnosis as the reason for why you would like to see her back shortly to ensure the issue has resolved.

Biopsy vulvar lesions, minimize empiric treatment

Vulvar cancer is notoriously associated with delayed diagnosis. Unfortunately, it is commonplace for gynecologic oncologists to see women who have vulvar cancers that have been empirically treated, sometimes for months or years, with steroids or other topical agents. If a lesion on the vulva is characteristically benign in appearance (such as condyloma or lichen sclerosis), it may be reasonable to start empiric treatment. However, all patients who are treated without biopsy should be rescheduled for a planned follow-up appointment in 2-3 months. If the lesion/area remains unchanged, or worse, the lesion should be biopsied before proceeding with a change in therapy or continued therapy. Once again, don’t rely on patients to return for evaluation if the lesion doesn’t improve. Many patients assume that our first empiric diagnosis is “gospel,” and therefore may not return if the treatment doesn’t work. Meanwhile, providers may assume that patients will know that there is uncertainty in our interpretation and that they will know to report if the initial treatment didn’t work. These assumptions are the recipe for delayed diagnosis. If there is too great a burden on the patient to schedule a return visit because of social or financial reasons then the patient should have a biopsy prior to initiation of treatment. As a rule, empiric treatment is not a good strategy for patients without good access to follow-up.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Sullivan S. et al Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Feb;144(2):294-8.

2. Perkins R .et al J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24(2):102-31.

Over the next 2 months we will dedicate this column to some general tips and pearls from the perspective of a gynecologic oncologist to guide general obstetrician gynecologists in the workup and management of preinvasive or invasive gynecologic diseases. The goal of these recommendations is to minimize misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis and avoid unnecessary or untimely referrals.

Perform biopsy, not Pap smears, on visible cervical and vaginal lesions

The purpose of the Pap smear is to screen asymptomatic patients for cervical dysplasia or microscopic invasive disease. Cytology is an unreliable diagnostic tool for visible, symptomatic lesions in large part because of sampling errors, and the lack of architectural information in cytologic versus histopathologic specimens. Invasive lesions can be mischaracterized as preinvasive on a Pap smear. This can result in delayed diagnosis and unnecessary diagnostic procedures. For example, if a visible, abnormal-appearing, cervical lesion is seen during a routine visit and a Pap smear is performed (rather than a biopsy of the mass), the patient may receive an incorrect preliminary diagnosis of “high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ” as it can be difficult to distinguish invasive carcinoma from carcinoma in situ on cytology. If the patient and provider do not understand the limitations of Pap smears in diagnosing invasive cancers, they may be falsely reassured and possibly delay or abstain from follow-up for an excisional procedure. If she does return for the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP), there might still be unnecessary delays in making referrals and definitive treatment while waiting for results. Radical hysterectomy may not promptly follow because, if performed within 6 weeks of an excisional procedure, it is associated with a significantly higher risk for perioperative complication, and therefore, if the excisional procedure was unnecessary to begin with, there may be additional time lost that need not be.¹

Some clinicians avoid biopsy of visible lesions because they are concerned about bleeding complications that might arise in the office. Straightforward strategies to control bleeding are readily available in most gynecology offices, especially those already equipped for procedures such as LEEP and colposcopy. Prior to performing the biopsy, clinicians should ensure that they have supplies such as gauze sponges and ring forceps or packing forceps, silver nitrate, and ferric subsulfate solution (“Monsel’s solution”) close at hand. In the vast majority of cases, direct pressure for 5 minutes with gauze sponges and ferric subsulfate is highly effective at resolving most bleeding from a cervical or vaginal biopsy site. If this does not bring hemostasis, cautery devices or suture can be employed. If all else fails, be prepared to place vaginal packing (always with the insertion of a urinary Foley catheter to prevent urinary retention). In my experience, this is rarely needed.

Wherever possible, visible cervical or vaginal (or vulvar, see below) lesions should be biopsied for histopathology, sampling representative areas of the most concerning portion, in order to minimize misdiagnosis and expedite referral and definitive treatment. For necrotic-appearing lesions I recommend taking multiple samples of the tumor, as necrotic, nonviable tissue can prevent accurate diagnosis of a cancer. In general, Pap smears should be reserved as screening tests for asymptomatic women without visible pathology.
 

Don’t treat or refer low-grade dysplasia, even if persistent

Increasingly we are understanding that low-grade dysplasia of the lower genital tract (CIN I, VAIN I, VIN I) is less a precursor for cancer, and more a phenomenon of benign HPV-associated changes.² This HPV change may be chronically persistent, may require years of observation and serial Pap smears, and may be a general nuisance for the patient. However, current guidelines do not recommend intervention for low-grade dysplasia of the lower genital tract.² Interventions to resect these lesions can result in morbidity, including perineal pain, vaginal scarring, and cervical stenosis or insufficiency. Given the extremely low risk for progression to cancer, these morbidities do not outweigh any small potential benefit.

When I am conferring with patients who have chronic low-grade dysplasia I spend a great deal of time exploring their understanding of the diagnosis and its pathophysiology, their fears, and their expectation regarding “success” of treatment. I spend the time educating them that this is a sequela of chronic viral infection that will not be eradicated with local surgical excisions, that their cancer risk and need for surveillance would persist even if surgical intervention were offered, and that the side effects of treatment would outweigh any benefit from the small risk of cancer or high-grade dysplasia.

In summary, the treatment of choice for persistent low-grade dysplasia of the lower genital tract is comprehensive patient education, not surgical resection or referral to gynecologic oncology.
 

Repeat sampling if there’s a discordance between imaging and biopsy results

Delay in cancer diagnosis is one of the greatest concerns for front-line gynecology providers. One of the more modifiable strategies to avoid missed or delayed diagnosis is to ensure that there is concordance between clinical findings and testing results. Otherwise said: The results and findings should make sense in aggregate. An example was cited above in which a visible cervical mass demonstrated CIN III on cytologic testing. Another common example is a biopsy result of “scant benign endometrium” in a patient with postmenopausal bleeding and thickened endometrial stripe on ultrasound. In both of these cases there is clear discordance between physical findings and the results of pathology sampling. A pathology report, in all of its black and white certitude, seems like the most reliable source of information. However, always trust your clinical judgment. If the clinical picture is suggesting something far worse than these limited, often random or blind samplings, I recommend repeated or more extensive sampling (for example, dilation and curettage). At the very least, schedule close follow-up with repeated sampling if the symptom or finding persists. The emphasis here is on scheduled follow-up, rather than “p.r.n.,” because a patient who was given a “normal” pathology result to explain her abnormal symptoms may not volunteer that those symptoms are persistent as she may feel that anything sinister was already ruled out. Make certain that you explain the potential for misdiagnosis as the reason for why you would like to see her back shortly to ensure the issue has resolved.

Biopsy vulvar lesions, minimize empiric treatment

Vulvar cancer is notoriously associated with delayed diagnosis. Unfortunately, it is commonplace for gynecologic oncologists to see women who have vulvar cancers that have been empirically treated, sometimes for months or years, with steroids or other topical agents. If a lesion on the vulva is characteristically benign in appearance (such as condyloma or lichen sclerosis), it may be reasonable to start empiric treatment. However, all patients who are treated without biopsy should be rescheduled for a planned follow-up appointment in 2-3 months. If the lesion/area remains unchanged, or worse, the lesion should be biopsied before proceeding with a change in therapy or continued therapy. Once again, don’t rely on patients to return for evaluation if the lesion doesn’t improve. Many patients assume that our first empiric diagnosis is “gospel,” and therefore may not return if the treatment doesn’t work. Meanwhile, providers may assume that patients will know that there is uncertainty in our interpretation and that they will know to report if the initial treatment didn’t work. These assumptions are the recipe for delayed diagnosis. If there is too great a burden on the patient to schedule a return visit because of social or financial reasons then the patient should have a biopsy prior to initiation of treatment. As a rule, empiric treatment is not a good strategy for patients without good access to follow-up.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Sullivan S. et al Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Feb;144(2):294-8.

2. Perkins R .et al J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020 Apr;24(2):102-31.

Two chronic gynecologic conditions notably affect a woman’s quality of life (QoL), including fertility – one is endometriosis, and the other is a fibroid uterus. For a benign tumor, fibroids have an impressive prevalence found in approximately 50%-60% of women during their reproductive years. By menopause, it is estimated that 70% of woman have a fibroid, yet the true incidence is unknown given that only 25% of women experience symptoms bothersome enough to warrant intervention. This month’s article reviews the burden of fibroids and the latest management options that may potentially avoid surgery.

Background

Fibroids are monoclonal tumors of uterine smooth muscle that originate from the myometrium. Risk factors include family history, being premenopausal, increasing time since last delivery, obesity, and hypertension (ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 228 Jun 2021: Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun 1;137[6]:e100-e15) but oral hormonal contraception, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and increased parity reduce the risk of fibroids. Compared with White women, Black women have a 2-3 times higher prevalence of fibroids, develop them at a younger age, and present with larger fibroids.

The FIGO leiomyoma classification is the agreed upon system for identifying fibroid location. Symptoms are all too familiar to gynecologists, with life-threatening hemorrhage with severe anemia being the most feared, particularly for FIGO types 1-5. Transvaginal ultrasound is the simplest imaging tool for evaluation.

Adapted from Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2011;113:3-13.

Fibroids and fertility

Fibroids can impair fertility in several ways: alteration of local anatomy, including the detrimental effects of abnormal uterine bleeding; functional changes by increasing uterine contractions and impairing endometrium and myometrial blood supply; and changes to the local hormonal environment that could impair egg/sperm transport, or embryo implantation (Hum Reprod Update. 2017;22:665-86).

Prior to consideration of surgery, saline infusion sonogram can determine the degree of impact on the endometrium, which is most applicable to the infertility patient, but can also allow guidance toward the appropriate surgical approach.
 

Treatment options – medical

Management of fibroids is based on a woman’s age, desire for fertility, symptoms, and location of the fibroid(s). Expectant observation of a woman with fibroids may be a reasonable approach, provided the lack of symptoms impairing QoL and of anemia. Typically, there is no change in fibroid size during the short term, considered less than 1 year. Regarding fertility, studies are heterogeneous so there is no definitive conclusion that fibroids impair natural fertility (Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:100-10). Spontaneous regression, defined by a reduction in fibroid volume of greater than 20%, has been noted to occur in 7.0% of fibroids (Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2018;7[3]:117-21).

When fertility is not desired, medical management of fibroids is the initial conservative approach. GnRH agonists have been utilized for temporary relief of menometrorrhagia because of fibroids and to reduce their volume, particularly preoperatively. However, extended treatment can induce bone mineral density loss. Add-back therapy (tibolone, raloxifene, estriol, and ipriflavone) is of value in reducing bone loss while MPA and tibolone may manage vasomotor symptoms. More recently, the use of a GnRH antagonist (elagolix) along with add-back therapy has been approved for up to 24 months by the Food and Drug Administration and has demonstrated a more than 50% amenorrhea rate at 12 months (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:1313-26).

Progesterone plays an important role in fibroid growth, but the mechanism is unclear. Although not FDA approved, selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRM) act directly on fibroid size reduction at the level of the pituitary to induce amenorrhea through inhibition of ovulation. Also, more than one course of SPRMs can provide benefit for bleeding control and volume reduction. The SPRM ulipristal acetate for four courses of 3 months demonstrated 73.5% of patients experienced a fibroid volume reduction of greater than 25% and were amenorrheic (Fertil Steril. 2017;108:416-25). GnRH agonists or SPRMs may benefit women if the fibroid is larger than 3 cm or anemia exists, thereby precluding immediate surgery.

Other medication options include the levonorgestrel IUD, combined hormonal contraceptives, and tranexamic acid – all of which have limited data on effective results of treating abnormal uterine bleeding.
 

Treatment options – surgical

Fibroids are the most common reason for hysterectomy as they are the contributing indication in approximately one-third of surgeries. When future fertility is desired, current surgical options include hysteroscopic and laparoscopic (including robotic) myomectomy. Hysteroscopy is the standard approach for FIGO type 1 fibroids and can also manage some type 2 fibroids provided they are less than 3 cm and the latter is greater than 5 mm from the serosa. Type 2 fibroids may benefit from a “two-step” removal to allow the myometrium to contract and extrude the fibroid. In light of the risk of fluid overload with nonelectrolyte solutions that enable the use of monopolar cautery, many procedures are now performed with bipolar cautery or morcellators.

Laparoscopy (including robotic) has outcomes similar to those of laparotomy although the risk of uterine rupture with the former requires careful attention to thorough closure of the myometrial defect. Robotic myomectomy has outcomes similar to those of standard laparoscopy with less blood loss, but operating times may be prolonged (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;46:113-9).

The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women (Fertil Steril 2017;108;416-25). The rate of recurrence after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years. Intramural fibroids greater than 2.85 cm and not distorting the uterine cavity may decrease in vitro fertilization (IVF) success (Fertil Steril 2014;101:716-21).
 

Noninvasive treatment modalities

Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is the most popular minimally invasive alternative to surgical myomectomy. Risks include postembolization syndrome (pain, fever, nausea, leukocytosis, and occasionally malaise), infection, and damage to fertility. Rarely, loss of ovarian function can occur, particularly in women above age 45. Because of the disruption of uterine blood flow, UAE increases the risk of accelerating ovarian aging and infertility as well as atrophic endometrium. In addition, pregnancy complications are increased including miscarriage, preterm labor, and postpartum hemorrhage. There is debate regarding the need for cesarean section at time of delivery given the potential for weakening of the uterine wall following UAE.

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is guided by ultrasound or MRI and involves a high-energy-density ultrasound wave passing through the skin. The wave is absorbed and transformed into heat, causing the tissue protein to coagulate, and to be absorbed by the body. The procedure is scarless, carries a minimal risk of infection, and offers less pain compared with traditional approaches. However, HIFU is time consuming, and skin burns and unintentional tissue injury are a risk. A meta-analysis demonstrated improved symptoms of fibroids at 6 and 12 months (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021 in press).

Ultrasound-guided microwave ablation (MWA) uses an ablative electrode that is directly inserted into the target tissue via transcutaneous or transcervical approach via ultrasound guidance using microwave to produce heat for tissue coagulation necrosis. The advantages of MWA compared with HIFU and RFA are a higher tissue temperature, larger ablation volume, shorter operating time, less pain and no adverse major events (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021, in press).
 

Conclusion

The current literature cannot conclude that fibroids reduce the likelihood of achieving pregnancy with or without fertility treatment, based on a specific size, number, or location (not including submucosal or cavity-distorting intramural fibroids). Definitive evidence on the efficacy of myomectomy to improve fertility remains limited. Hysteroscopic myomectomy presumably improves pregnancy rates, but there is uncertainty as to its role in reducing miscarriage. Novel nonsurgical modalities are available and are expected to continue being developed but clarity on fertility outcomes is needed.
 

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts of interests. Please contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Two chronic gynecologic conditions notably affect a woman’s quality of life (QoL), including fertility – one is endometriosis, and the other is a fibroid uterus. For a benign tumor, fibroids have an impressive prevalence found in approximately 50%-60% of women during their reproductive years. By menopause, it is estimated that 70% of woman have a fibroid, yet the true incidence is unknown given that only 25% of women experience symptoms bothersome enough to warrant intervention. This month’s article reviews the burden of fibroids and the latest management options that may potentially avoid surgery.

Background

Fibroids are monoclonal tumors of uterine smooth muscle that originate from the myometrium. Risk factors include family history, being premenopausal, increasing time since last delivery, obesity, and hypertension (ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 228 Jun 2021: Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun 1;137[6]:e100-e15) but oral hormonal contraception, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and increased parity reduce the risk of fibroids. Compared with White women, Black women have a 2-3 times higher prevalence of fibroids, develop them at a younger age, and present with larger fibroids.

The FIGO leiomyoma classification is the agreed upon system for identifying fibroid location. Symptoms are all too familiar to gynecologists, with life-threatening hemorrhage with severe anemia being the most feared, particularly for FIGO types 1-5. Transvaginal ultrasound is the simplest imaging tool for evaluation.

Adapted from Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2011;113:3-13.

Fibroids and fertility

Fibroids can impair fertility in several ways: alteration of local anatomy, including the detrimental effects of abnormal uterine bleeding; functional changes by increasing uterine contractions and impairing endometrium and myometrial blood supply; and changes to the local hormonal environment that could impair egg/sperm transport, or embryo implantation (Hum Reprod Update. 2017;22:665-86).

Prior to consideration of surgery, saline infusion sonogram can determine the degree of impact on the endometrium, which is most applicable to the infertility patient, but can also allow guidance toward the appropriate surgical approach.
 

Treatment options – medical

Management of fibroids is based on a woman’s age, desire for fertility, symptoms, and location of the fibroid(s). Expectant observation of a woman with fibroids may be a reasonable approach, provided the lack of symptoms impairing QoL and of anemia. Typically, there is no change in fibroid size during the short term, considered less than 1 year. Regarding fertility, studies are heterogeneous so there is no definitive conclusion that fibroids impair natural fertility (Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:100-10). Spontaneous regression, defined by a reduction in fibroid volume of greater than 20%, has been noted to occur in 7.0% of fibroids (Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2018;7[3]:117-21).

When fertility is not desired, medical management of fibroids is the initial conservative approach. GnRH agonists have been utilized for temporary relief of menometrorrhagia because of fibroids and to reduce their volume, particularly preoperatively. However, extended treatment can induce bone mineral density loss. Add-back therapy (tibolone, raloxifene, estriol, and ipriflavone) is of value in reducing bone loss while MPA and tibolone may manage vasomotor symptoms. More recently, the use of a GnRH antagonist (elagolix) along with add-back therapy has been approved for up to 24 months by the Food and Drug Administration and has demonstrated a more than 50% amenorrhea rate at 12 months (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:1313-26).

Progesterone plays an important role in fibroid growth, but the mechanism is unclear. Although not FDA approved, selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRM) act directly on fibroid size reduction at the level of the pituitary to induce amenorrhea through inhibition of ovulation. Also, more than one course of SPRMs can provide benefit for bleeding control and volume reduction. The SPRM ulipristal acetate for four courses of 3 months demonstrated 73.5% of patients experienced a fibroid volume reduction of greater than 25% and were amenorrheic (Fertil Steril. 2017;108:416-25). GnRH agonists or SPRMs may benefit women if the fibroid is larger than 3 cm or anemia exists, thereby precluding immediate surgery.

Other medication options include the levonorgestrel IUD, combined hormonal contraceptives, and tranexamic acid – all of which have limited data on effective results of treating abnormal uterine bleeding.
 

Treatment options – surgical

Fibroids are the most common reason for hysterectomy as they are the contributing indication in approximately one-third of surgeries. When future fertility is desired, current surgical options include hysteroscopic and laparoscopic (including robotic) myomectomy. Hysteroscopy is the standard approach for FIGO type 1 fibroids and can also manage some type 2 fibroids provided they are less than 3 cm and the latter is greater than 5 mm from the serosa. Type 2 fibroids may benefit from a “two-step” removal to allow the myometrium to contract and extrude the fibroid. In light of the risk of fluid overload with nonelectrolyte solutions that enable the use of monopolar cautery, many procedures are now performed with bipolar cautery or morcellators.

Laparoscopy (including robotic) has outcomes similar to those of laparotomy although the risk of uterine rupture with the former requires careful attention to thorough closure of the myometrial defect. Robotic myomectomy has outcomes similar to those of standard laparoscopy with less blood loss, but operating times may be prolonged (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;46:113-9).

The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women (Fertil Steril 2017;108;416-25). The rate of recurrence after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years. Intramural fibroids greater than 2.85 cm and not distorting the uterine cavity may decrease in vitro fertilization (IVF) success (Fertil Steril 2014;101:716-21).
 

Noninvasive treatment modalities

Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is the most popular minimally invasive alternative to surgical myomectomy. Risks include postembolization syndrome (pain, fever, nausea, leukocytosis, and occasionally malaise), infection, and damage to fertility. Rarely, loss of ovarian function can occur, particularly in women above age 45. Because of the disruption of uterine blood flow, UAE increases the risk of accelerating ovarian aging and infertility as well as atrophic endometrium. In addition, pregnancy complications are increased including miscarriage, preterm labor, and postpartum hemorrhage. There is debate regarding the need for cesarean section at time of delivery given the potential for weakening of the uterine wall following UAE.

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is guided by ultrasound or MRI and involves a high-energy-density ultrasound wave passing through the skin. The wave is absorbed and transformed into heat, causing the tissue protein to coagulate, and to be absorbed by the body. The procedure is scarless, carries a minimal risk of infection, and offers less pain compared with traditional approaches. However, HIFU is time consuming, and skin burns and unintentional tissue injury are a risk. A meta-analysis demonstrated improved symptoms of fibroids at 6 and 12 months (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021 in press).

Ultrasound-guided microwave ablation (MWA) uses an ablative electrode that is directly inserted into the target tissue via transcutaneous or transcervical approach via ultrasound guidance using microwave to produce heat for tissue coagulation necrosis. The advantages of MWA compared with HIFU and RFA are a higher tissue temperature, larger ablation volume, shorter operating time, less pain and no adverse major events (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021, in press).
 

Conclusion

The current literature cannot conclude that fibroids reduce the likelihood of achieving pregnancy with or without fertility treatment, based on a specific size, number, or location (not including submucosal or cavity-distorting intramural fibroids). Definitive evidence on the efficacy of myomectomy to improve fertility remains limited. Hysteroscopic myomectomy presumably improves pregnancy rates, but there is uncertainty as to its role in reducing miscarriage. Novel nonsurgical modalities are available and are expected to continue being developed but clarity on fertility outcomes is needed.
 

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts of interests. Please contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

Two chronic gynecologic conditions notably affect a woman’s quality of life (QoL), including fertility – one is endometriosis, and the other is a fibroid uterus. For a benign tumor, fibroids have an impressive prevalence found in approximately 50%-60% of women during their reproductive years. By menopause, it is estimated that 70% of woman have a fibroid, yet the true incidence is unknown given that only 25% of women experience symptoms bothersome enough to warrant intervention. This month’s article reviews the burden of fibroids and the latest management options that may potentially avoid surgery.

Background

Fibroids are monoclonal tumors of uterine smooth muscle that originate from the myometrium. Risk factors include family history, being premenopausal, increasing time since last delivery, obesity, and hypertension (ACOG Practice Bulletin no. 228 Jun 2021: Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun 1;137[6]:e100-e15) but oral hormonal contraception, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and increased parity reduce the risk of fibroids. Compared with White women, Black women have a 2-3 times higher prevalence of fibroids, develop them at a younger age, and present with larger fibroids.

The FIGO leiomyoma classification is the agreed upon system for identifying fibroid location. Symptoms are all too familiar to gynecologists, with life-threatening hemorrhage with severe anemia being the most feared, particularly for FIGO types 1-5. Transvaginal ultrasound is the simplest imaging tool for evaluation.

Adapted from Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2011;113:3-13.

Fibroids and fertility

Fibroids can impair fertility in several ways: alteration of local anatomy, including the detrimental effects of abnormal uterine bleeding; functional changes by increasing uterine contractions and impairing endometrium and myometrial blood supply; and changes to the local hormonal environment that could impair egg/sperm transport, or embryo implantation (Hum Reprod Update. 2017;22:665-86).

Prior to consideration of surgery, saline infusion sonogram can determine the degree of impact on the endometrium, which is most applicable to the infertility patient, but can also allow guidance toward the appropriate surgical approach.
 

Treatment options – medical

Management of fibroids is based on a woman’s age, desire for fertility, symptoms, and location of the fibroid(s). Expectant observation of a woman with fibroids may be a reasonable approach, provided the lack of symptoms impairing QoL and of anemia. Typically, there is no change in fibroid size during the short term, considered less than 1 year. Regarding fertility, studies are heterogeneous so there is no definitive conclusion that fibroids impair natural fertility (Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;43:100-10). Spontaneous regression, defined by a reduction in fibroid volume of greater than 20%, has been noted to occur in 7.0% of fibroids (Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2018;7[3]:117-21).

When fertility is not desired, medical management of fibroids is the initial conservative approach. GnRH agonists have been utilized for temporary relief of menometrorrhagia because of fibroids and to reduce their volume, particularly preoperatively. However, extended treatment can induce bone mineral density loss. Add-back therapy (tibolone, raloxifene, estriol, and ipriflavone) is of value in reducing bone loss while MPA and tibolone may manage vasomotor symptoms. More recently, the use of a GnRH antagonist (elagolix) along with add-back therapy has been approved for up to 24 months by the Food and Drug Administration and has demonstrated a more than 50% amenorrhea rate at 12 months (Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135:1313-26).

Progesterone plays an important role in fibroid growth, but the mechanism is unclear. Although not FDA approved, selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRM) act directly on fibroid size reduction at the level of the pituitary to induce amenorrhea through inhibition of ovulation. Also, more than one course of SPRMs can provide benefit for bleeding control and volume reduction. The SPRM ulipristal acetate for four courses of 3 months demonstrated 73.5% of patients experienced a fibroid volume reduction of greater than 25% and were amenorrheic (Fertil Steril. 2017;108:416-25). GnRH agonists or SPRMs may benefit women if the fibroid is larger than 3 cm or anemia exists, thereby precluding immediate surgery.

Other medication options include the levonorgestrel IUD, combined hormonal contraceptives, and tranexamic acid – all of which have limited data on effective results of treating abnormal uterine bleeding.
 

Treatment options – surgical

Fibroids are the most common reason for hysterectomy as they are the contributing indication in approximately one-third of surgeries. When future fertility is desired, current surgical options include hysteroscopic and laparoscopic (including robotic) myomectomy. Hysteroscopy is the standard approach for FIGO type 1 fibroids and can also manage some type 2 fibroids provided they are less than 3 cm and the latter is greater than 5 mm from the serosa. Type 2 fibroids may benefit from a “two-step” removal to allow the myometrium to contract and extrude the fibroid. In light of the risk of fluid overload with nonelectrolyte solutions that enable the use of monopolar cautery, many procedures are now performed with bipolar cautery or morcellators.

Laparoscopy (including robotic) has outcomes similar to those of laparotomy although the risk of uterine rupture with the former requires careful attention to thorough closure of the myometrial defect. Robotic myomectomy has outcomes similar to those of standard laparoscopy with less blood loss, but operating times may be prolonged (Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;46:113-9).

The rate of myomectomy is reported to be 9.2 per 10,000 woman-years in Black women and 1.3 per 10,000 woman years in White women (Fertil Steril 2017;108;416-25). The rate of recurrence after myomectomy can be as great as 60% when patients are followed up to 5 years. Intramural fibroids greater than 2.85 cm and not distorting the uterine cavity may decrease in vitro fertilization (IVF) success (Fertil Steril 2014;101:716-21).
 

Noninvasive treatment modalities

Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is the most popular minimally invasive alternative to surgical myomectomy. Risks include postembolization syndrome (pain, fever, nausea, leukocytosis, and occasionally malaise), infection, and damage to fertility. Rarely, loss of ovarian function can occur, particularly in women above age 45. Because of the disruption of uterine blood flow, UAE increases the risk of accelerating ovarian aging and infertility as well as atrophic endometrium. In addition, pregnancy complications are increased including miscarriage, preterm labor, and postpartum hemorrhage. There is debate regarding the need for cesarean section at time of delivery given the potential for weakening of the uterine wall following UAE.

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is guided by ultrasound or MRI and involves a high-energy-density ultrasound wave passing through the skin. The wave is absorbed and transformed into heat, causing the tissue protein to coagulate, and to be absorbed by the body. The procedure is scarless, carries a minimal risk of infection, and offers less pain compared with traditional approaches. However, HIFU is time consuming, and skin burns and unintentional tissue injury are a risk. A meta-analysis demonstrated improved symptoms of fibroids at 6 and 12 months (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021 in press).

Ultrasound-guided microwave ablation (MWA) uses an ablative electrode that is directly inserted into the target tissue via transcutaneous or transcervical approach via ultrasound guidance using microwave to produce heat for tissue coagulation necrosis. The advantages of MWA compared with HIFU and RFA are a higher tissue temperature, larger ablation volume, shorter operating time, less pain and no adverse major events (J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2021, in press).
 

Conclusion

The current literature cannot conclude that fibroids reduce the likelihood of achieving pregnancy with or without fertility treatment, based on a specific size, number, or location (not including submucosal or cavity-distorting intramural fibroids). Definitive evidence on the efficacy of myomectomy to improve fertility remains limited. Hysteroscopic myomectomy presumably improves pregnancy rates, but there is uncertainty as to its role in reducing miscarriage. Novel nonsurgical modalities are available and are expected to continue being developed but clarity on fertility outcomes is needed.
 

Dr. Trolice is director of Fertility CARE – The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He has no conflicts of interests. Please contact him at obnews@mdedge.com.

The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.

The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.

“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”

However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.

“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”

Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.

Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.

“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”

The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.

Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.

For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.

“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.

Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.

Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.

“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”

Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.

The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.

The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.

“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”

However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.

“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”

Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.

Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.

“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”

The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.

Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.

For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.

“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.

Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.

Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.

“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”

Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.

The risk of in-hospital complications and poor birth outcomes were greater in pregnant women with current or historical cancer diagnoses, new research suggests.

The study, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, found that women with current and historical cancer diagnoses had an increased risk of death, kidney injury, and stroke during delivery hospitalizations, compared with those with no cancer. When it came to delivery outcomes, this group also had a higher risk for preterm birth and postpartum hemorrhage. Those with a current cancer diagnoses had a 1.7-fold increase in odds for a preterm birth, compared with women without cancer.

“Our study found that metastases increased the odds of mortality, cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and stillbirth,” the researchers noted. “Coupled with previous research reporting that pregnant women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, this implies that pregnant women with newly diagnosed cancer have poor prognoses.”

However, although women with prior cancer had increased odds of mortality, the researchers said it was not statistically significant.

“The study really did not show an increase of mortality [for women with prior cancer diagnosis],” said Justin Chura, MD, a specialist in gynecologic oncology who was not involved in the study. “And the reason might be because there is not or the reason might be because it’s such a rare event. You would need 100 million births to assess that. So I would actually use caution in that interpretation.”

Researchers analyzed more than 43 million delivery hospitalizations of women with or without current or historical cancer diagnoses between January 2004 and December 2014. They found that the most common cancer diagnoses were hematologic, thyroid, cervical, skin, and breast.

Of the five most common cancers, the prevalence of all maternal complications and negative delivery outcomes was the highest among women with hematologic cancers. They were more likely to experience peripartum cardiomyopathy, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia, compared with other cancers. Postpartum hemorrhage, maternal mortality, and placental abruption was also more likely to occur in those with this type of cancer.

“I was surprised that it was the hematologic cancers that were worse when they did it by cancer type,” said Dr. Chura, who is the chief of surgery and the director of gynecologic oncology and robotic surgery at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America’s Eastern Regional Medical Center in Philadelphia. “I think this is a useful bit of information for counseling our patients and also to identify the cohort with the highest risk.”

The findings also suggested that those with skin cancer had the highest odds for stroke, while women with cervical and breast cancers were more likely to experience acute kidney injury and preterm birth.

Dr. Chura said cancer treatments can have an impact on a woman’s health when she’s giving birth. For example, if a woman is diagnosed with cervical cancer, doctors may perform a cone biopsy on her where they remove a large portion of the cervix and still leave them with the ability to conceive and become pregnant. However, those patients are left with a higher risk of a preterm delivery.

For women with a hematologic cancer like non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chest radiation may cause some subsequent damage to their heart muscles “and now the stress of pregnancy puts more demand on the heart that can lead to cardiac complications for that patient,” Dr. Chura said.

“There are potential long-term effects from radiation and chemotherapy,” Dr. Chura said.

Previous studies have shown that chemotherapy may affect pregnancy and delivery. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Cancer also found that 59 pregnant women with cancer had increased mortality compared with those without the long-term illness. Meanwhile, another 2018 study published in Cancer found that women who conceived less than a year after starting chemotherapy had higher risks of preterm birth in comparison with those who conceived more than a year after starting chemotherapy. The study also found that cancer survivors who conceived more than a year after finishing chemotherapy with or without radiation had no higher risk of a preterm birth than those without cancer.

Dr. Chura said the new study could force doctors to think about the long-term effects of their cancer therapies and make them more apt to think about how to make cancer therapy less toxic with less long-term health consequences, while still curing patients.

“Most oncologists, when dealing with younger patients, are very focused on curing the cancer at hand, but not necessarily thinking 5 or 10 years down the road,” Dr. Chura said. “[This study] could help inform or at least make us aware of the long-term consequences of our cancer therapies.”

Dr. Chura had no relevant financial disclosures.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.

“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”

The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.

Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.

Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.

“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”

The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.

Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.

Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to update the labeling on all statins to remove the drugs’ blanket contraindication in all pregnant patients, the agency has announced. The change should reinforce for both physicians and patients that statin use in women with unrecognized pregnancy is unlikely to be harmful, it said.

“Because the benefits of statins may include prevention of serious or potentially fatal events in a small group of very high-risk pregnant patients, contraindicating these drugs in all pregnant women is not appropriate.”

The revision should emphasize for clinicians “that statins are safe to prescribe in patients who can become pregnant and help them reassure patients with unintended statin exposure in early pregnancy,” the FDA explained.

Removal of the broadly worded contraindication should “enable health care professionals and patients to make individual decisions about benefit and risk, especially for those at very high risk of heart attack or stroke." That includes women with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are prescribed statins for secondary prevention, the agency said.

Clinicians “should discontinue statin therapy in most pregnant patients, or they can consider the ongoing therapeutic needs of the individual patient, particularly those at very high risk for cardiovascular events during pregnancy. Because of the chronic nature of cardiovascular disease, treatment of hyperlipidemia is not generally necessary during pregnancy.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

THE CASE

A 27-year-old woman presented to the family medicine clinic to establish care for a recent onset of seizures, for which she had previously been admitted, 4 months after delivering her first child. Her pregnancy was complicated by type 1 diabetes and poor glycemic control. Labor was induced at 37 weeks; however, vaginal delivery was impeded by arrest of dilation. An emergency cesarean section was performed under general anesthesia, resulting in a healthy newborn male.

Six weeks after giving birth, the patient was started on sertraline 50 mg/d for postpartum depression. Her history was significant for depression 8 years prior that was controlled with psychotherapy, and treated prior to coming to our clinic. She had not experienced any depressive symptoms during pregnancy.

Three months postpartum, she was hospitalized for recurrent syncopal episodes. They lasted about 2 minutes, with prodromal generalized weakness followed by loss of consciousness. There was no post-event confusion, tongue-biting, or incontinence. Physical exam, electroencephalogram (EEG), echocardiogram, and magnetic resonance imaging of the head and neck demonstrated no acute findings.

These episodes escalated in frequency weeks after they began, involving as many as 40 daily attacks, some of which lasted up to 45 minutes. During these events, the patient was nonresponsive but reported reliving the delivery of her child. Upon initial consultation with Neurology, no cause was found, and she was advised to wear a helmet, stop driving, and refrain from carrying her son. No antiepileptic medications were initiated because there were no EEG findings that supported seizure, and her mood had not improved, despite an increase in sertraline dosage, a switch to citalopram, and the addition of bupropion. She described anxiety, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts during psychotherapy sessions. Her psychiatrist gave her an additional diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) secondary to her delivery. The family medicine clinic assisted the patient and her family throughout her care by functioning as a home base for her.

Eight months following initial symptoms, repeat evaluation with a video-EEG revealed no evidence of EEG changes during seizure-like activity.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient was given a diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizure (PNES) by a neurologist experienced in diagnosing both epilepsy and PNES. The physician made the diagnosis after noting that the seizures on video had no corresponding epileptiform activity on EEG. This represents a “documented” diagnosis, the highest level of confidence possible in diagnosing PNES, as reported by the International League Against Epilepsy Nonepileptic Seizures Task Force.¹

DISCUSSION

With a prevalence of 5% to 10% and 20% to 40% in outpatient and inpatient epilepsy clinics respectively, PNES events have become of increasing interest to physicians.² There are few cases of PNES in women during pregnancy reported in the literature.^3,4 This is the first case report of PNES with postpartum onset.

Continue to: Epilepsy vs psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

 

 

Epilepsy vs psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

PNES episodes appear similar to epileptic seizures, but without a definitive neurobiologic source.^2,3 However, recent literature suggests the root cause may be found in abnormalities in neurologic networks, such as dysfunction of frontal and parietal lobe connectivity and increased communication from emotional centers of the brain.^2,5 There are no typical pathognomonic symptoms of PNES, leading to diagnostic difficulty.² A definitive diagnosis may be made when a patient experiences seizures without EEG abnormalities.² Further diagnostic brain imaging is unnecessary.

Trauma may be the underlying cause

A predominance of PNES in both women and young adults, with no definitive associated factors, has been reported in the literature.² Studies suggest childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, traumatic brain injury, and health-related trauma, such as distressing medical experiences and surgeries, may be risk factors, while depression, misdiagnosis, and mistreatment can heighten seizure activity.^2,3

Treatment requires a multidisciplinary team

Effective management of PNES requires collaboration between the primary care physician, neurologist, psychiatrist, and psychotherapist, with an emphasis on evaluation and control of the underlying trigger(s).³ Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), supportive care, and patient education in reducing seizure frequency at the 6-month follow-up.^3,6 Additional studies have reported the best prognostic factor in PNES management is patient employment of an internal locus of control—the patient’s belief that they control life events.^7,8 Case series suggest electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective alternative mood stabilization and seizure reduction therapy when tolerated.⁹

Our patient tried several combinations of treatment to manage PNES and comorbid psychiatric conditions, including CBT, antidepressants, and anxiolytics. After about 5 treatment failures, she pursued ECT for treatment-resistant depression and PNES frequency reduction but failed to tolerate therapy. Currently, her PNES has been reduced to 1 to 2 weekly episodes with a 200 mg/d dose of lamotrigine as a mood stabilizer combined with CBT.

THE TAKEAWAY

Providers should investigate a patient’s history and psychologic disposition when the patient presents with seizure-like behavior without a neurobiologic source or with a negative video-EEG study. A history of depression, traumatic experience, PTSD, or other psychosocial triggers must be noted early to prevent a delay in treatment when PNES is part of the differential. Due to a delayed diagnosis of PNES in our patient, she went without full treatment for almost 12 months and experienced worsening episodes. The primary care physician plays an integral role in early identification and intervention through anticipatory guidance, initial work-up, and support for patients with suspected PNES (TABLE).

CORRESPONDENCE
Karim Hanna, MD, 13330 USF Laurel Drive, Tampa, FL; khanna@usf.edu

THE CASE

A 27-year-old woman presented to the family medicine clinic to establish care for a recent onset of seizures, for which she had previously been admitted, 4 months after delivering her first child. Her pregnancy was complicated by type 1 diabetes and poor glycemic control. Labor was induced at 37 weeks; however, vaginal delivery was impeded by arrest of dilation. An emergency cesarean section was performed under general anesthesia, resulting in a healthy newborn male.

Six weeks after giving birth, the patient was started on sertraline 50 mg/d for postpartum depression. Her history was significant for depression 8 years prior that was controlled with psychotherapy, and treated prior to coming to our clinic. She had not experienced any depressive symptoms during pregnancy.

Three months postpartum, she was hospitalized for recurrent syncopal episodes. They lasted about 2 minutes, with prodromal generalized weakness followed by loss of consciousness. There was no post-event confusion, tongue-biting, or incontinence. Physical exam, electroencephalogram (EEG), echocardiogram, and magnetic resonance imaging of the head and neck demonstrated no acute findings.

These episodes escalated in frequency weeks after they began, involving as many as 40 daily attacks, some of which lasted up to 45 minutes. During these events, the patient was nonresponsive but reported reliving the delivery of her child. Upon initial consultation with Neurology, no cause was found, and she was advised to wear a helmet, stop driving, and refrain from carrying her son. No antiepileptic medications were initiated because there were no EEG findings that supported seizure, and her mood had not improved, despite an increase in sertraline dosage, a switch to citalopram, and the addition of bupropion. She described anxiety, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts during psychotherapy sessions. Her psychiatrist gave her an additional diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) secondary to her delivery. The family medicine clinic assisted the patient and her family throughout her care by functioning as a home base for her.

Eight months following initial symptoms, repeat evaluation with a video-EEG revealed no evidence of EEG changes during seizure-like activity.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient was given a diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizure (PNES) by a neurologist experienced in diagnosing both epilepsy and PNES. The physician made the diagnosis after noting that the seizures on video had no corresponding epileptiform activity on EEG. This represents a “documented” diagnosis, the highest level of confidence possible in diagnosing PNES, as reported by the International League Against Epilepsy Nonepileptic Seizures Task Force.¹

DISCUSSION

With a prevalence of 5% to 10% and 20% to 40% in outpatient and inpatient epilepsy clinics respectively, PNES events have become of increasing interest to physicians.² There are few cases of PNES in women during pregnancy reported in the literature.^3,4 This is the first case report of PNES with postpartum onset.

Continue to: Epilepsy vs psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

 

 

Epilepsy vs psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

PNES episodes appear similar to epileptic seizures, but without a definitive neurobiologic source.^2,3 However, recent literature suggests the root cause may be found in abnormalities in neurologic networks, such as dysfunction of frontal and parietal lobe connectivity and increased communication from emotional centers of the brain.^2,5 There are no typical pathognomonic symptoms of PNES, leading to diagnostic difficulty.² A definitive diagnosis may be made when a patient experiences seizures without EEG abnormalities.² Further diagnostic brain imaging is unnecessary.

Trauma may be the underlying cause

A predominance of PNES in both women and young adults, with no definitive associated factors, has been reported in the literature.² Studies suggest childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, traumatic brain injury, and health-related trauma, such as distressing medical experiences and surgeries, may be risk factors, while depression, misdiagnosis, and mistreatment can heighten seizure activity.^2,3

Treatment requires a multidisciplinary team

Effective management of PNES requires collaboration between the primary care physician, neurologist, psychiatrist, and psychotherapist, with an emphasis on evaluation and control of the underlying trigger(s).³ Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), supportive care, and patient education in reducing seizure frequency at the 6-month follow-up.^3,6 Additional studies have reported the best prognostic factor in PNES management is patient employment of an internal locus of control—the patient’s belief that they control life events.^7,8 Case series suggest electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective alternative mood stabilization and seizure reduction therapy when tolerated.⁹

Our patient tried several combinations of treatment to manage PNES and comorbid psychiatric conditions, including CBT, antidepressants, and anxiolytics. After about 5 treatment failures, she pursued ECT for treatment-resistant depression and PNES frequency reduction but failed to tolerate therapy. Currently, her PNES has been reduced to 1 to 2 weekly episodes with a 200 mg/d dose of lamotrigine as a mood stabilizer combined with CBT.

THE TAKEAWAY

Providers should investigate a patient’s history and psychologic disposition when the patient presents with seizure-like behavior without a neurobiologic source or with a negative video-EEG study. A history of depression, traumatic experience, PTSD, or other psychosocial triggers must be noted early to prevent a delay in treatment when PNES is part of the differential. Due to a delayed diagnosis of PNES in our patient, she went without full treatment for almost 12 months and experienced worsening episodes. The primary care physician plays an integral role in early identification and intervention through anticipatory guidance, initial work-up, and support for patients with suspected PNES (TABLE).

CORRESPONDENCE
Karim Hanna, MD, 13330 USF Laurel Drive, Tampa, FL; khanna@usf.edu

THE CASE

A 27-year-old woman presented to the family medicine clinic to establish care for a recent onset of seizures, for which she had previously been admitted, 4 months after delivering her first child. Her pregnancy was complicated by type 1 diabetes and poor glycemic control. Labor was induced at 37 weeks; however, vaginal delivery was impeded by arrest of dilation. An emergency cesarean section was performed under general anesthesia, resulting in a healthy newborn male.

Six weeks after giving birth, the patient was started on sertraline 50 mg/d for postpartum depression. Her history was significant for depression 8 years prior that was controlled with psychotherapy, and treated prior to coming to our clinic. She had not experienced any depressive symptoms during pregnancy.

Three months postpartum, she was hospitalized for recurrent syncopal episodes. They lasted about 2 minutes, with prodromal generalized weakness followed by loss of consciousness. There was no post-event confusion, tongue-biting, or incontinence. Physical exam, electroencephalogram (EEG), echocardiogram, and magnetic resonance imaging of the head and neck demonstrated no acute findings.

These episodes escalated in frequency weeks after they began, involving as many as 40 daily attacks, some of which lasted up to 45 minutes. During these events, the patient was nonresponsive but reported reliving the delivery of her child. Upon initial consultation with Neurology, no cause was found, and she was advised to wear a helmet, stop driving, and refrain from carrying her son. No antiepileptic medications were initiated because there were no EEG findings that supported seizure, and her mood had not improved, despite an increase in sertraline dosage, a switch to citalopram, and the addition of bupropion. She described anxiety, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts during psychotherapy sessions. Her psychiatrist gave her an additional diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) secondary to her delivery. The family medicine clinic assisted the patient and her family throughout her care by functioning as a home base for her.

Eight months following initial symptoms, repeat evaluation with a video-EEG revealed no evidence of EEG changes during seizure-like activity.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient was given a diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizure (PNES) by a neurologist experienced in diagnosing both epilepsy and PNES. The physician made the diagnosis after noting that the seizures on video had no corresponding epileptiform activity on EEG. This represents a “documented” diagnosis, the highest level of confidence possible in diagnosing PNES, as reported by the International League Against Epilepsy Nonepileptic Seizures Task Force.¹

DISCUSSION

With a prevalence of 5% to 10% and 20% to 40% in outpatient and inpatient epilepsy clinics respectively, PNES events have become of increasing interest to physicians.² There are few cases of PNES in women during pregnancy reported in the literature.^3,4 This is the first case report of PNES with postpartum onset.

Continue to: Epilepsy vs psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

 

 

Epilepsy vs psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

PNES episodes appear similar to epileptic seizures, but without a definitive neurobiologic source.^2,3 However, recent literature suggests the root cause may be found in abnormalities in neurologic networks, such as dysfunction of frontal and parietal lobe connectivity and increased communication from emotional centers of the brain.^2,5 There are no typical pathognomonic symptoms of PNES, leading to diagnostic difficulty.² A definitive diagnosis may be made when a patient experiences seizures without EEG abnormalities.² Further diagnostic brain imaging is unnecessary.

Trauma may be the underlying cause

A predominance of PNES in both women and young adults, with no definitive associated factors, has been reported in the literature.² Studies suggest childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, traumatic brain injury, and health-related trauma, such as distressing medical experiences and surgeries, may be risk factors, while depression, misdiagnosis, and mistreatment can heighten seizure activity.^2,3

Treatment requires a multidisciplinary team

Effective management of PNES requires collaboration between the primary care physician, neurologist, psychiatrist, and psychotherapist, with an emphasis on evaluation and control of the underlying trigger(s).³ Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), supportive care, and patient education in reducing seizure frequency at the 6-month follow-up.^3,6 Additional studies have reported the best prognostic factor in PNES management is patient employment of an internal locus of control—the patient’s belief that they control life events.^7,8 Case series suggest electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective alternative mood stabilization and seizure reduction therapy when tolerated.⁹

Our patient tried several combinations of treatment to manage PNES and comorbid psychiatric conditions, including CBT, antidepressants, and anxiolytics. After about 5 treatment failures, she pursued ECT for treatment-resistant depression and PNES frequency reduction but failed to tolerate therapy. Currently, her PNES has been reduced to 1 to 2 weekly episodes with a 200 mg/d dose of lamotrigine as a mood stabilizer combined with CBT.

THE TAKEAWAY

Providers should investigate a patient’s history and psychologic disposition when the patient presents with seizure-like behavior without a neurobiologic source or with a negative video-EEG study. A history of depression, traumatic experience, PTSD, or other psychosocial triggers must be noted early to prevent a delay in treatment when PNES is part of the differential. Due to a delayed diagnosis of PNES in our patient, she went without full treatment for almost 12 months and experienced worsening episodes. The primary care physician plays an integral role in early identification and intervention through anticipatory guidance, initial work-up, and support for patients with suspected PNES (TABLE).

CORRESPONDENCE
Karim Hanna, MD, 13330 USF Laurel Drive, Tampa, FL; khanna@usf.edu

Black women undergoing hysterectomies were significantly more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons than high-volume surgeons, and to experience perioperative complications as a result, based on data from more than 300,000 patients.

“Outcomes for hysterectomy, for both benign and malignant disease, are improved when the procedure is performed at high-volume hospitals and by high-volume surgeons,” Anne Knisely, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.

Historically, Black patients have been less likely to be referred to high-volume hospitals, the researchers noted. Recent efforts to regionalize surgical procedures to high-volume hospitals aim to reduce disparities and improve care for all patients, but the data on disparities in care within high-volume hospitals are limited, they said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 300,586 women who underwent hysterectomy in New York state between 2000 and 2014. The researchers divided surgeons at these hospitals into volume groups based on average annual hysterectomy volume.

The women were treated by 5,505 surgeons at 59 hospitals. Overall, Black women comprised significantly more of the patients treated by low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (19.4% vs. 14.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.26), and more women treated by low-volume surgeons had Medicare insurance compared with those treated by high-volume surgeons (20.6% vs. 14.5%; aOR, 1.22).

A majority of the patients (262,005 patients) were treated by a total of 1,377 high-volume surgeons, while 2,105 low-volume surgeons treated 2,900 patients. Abdominal hysterectomies accounted for 57.5% of the procedures, followed by laparoscopic (23.9%), vaginal (13.2%), and robotic assisted (5.3%). Approximately two-thirds (64.4%) of the patients were aged 40-59 years; 63.7% were White, 15.1% were Black, and 8.5% were Hispanic.

The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients treated by low-volume surgeons, compared with high-volume surgeons (31.0% vs. 10.3%), including intraoperative complications, surgical-site complications, medical complications, and transfusions. The perioperative mortality rate also was significantly higher for patients of low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (2.2% vs. 0.2%).

Low-volume surgeons were more likely to perform urgent or emergent procedures, compared with high-volume surgeons (26.1% vs 6.4%), and to perform abdominal hysterectomy versus minimally invasive hysterectomy compared with high-volume surgeons (77.8% vs. 54.7%), the researchers added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and possible undercoding of outcomes, inclusion only of New York state patients, lack of data on clinical characteristics such as surgical history and complexity, lack of data on surgeon characteristics, and changing practice patterns over time, the researchers noted.

However, “this study demonstrates increased perioperative morbidity and mortality for patients who underwent hysterectomy by low-volume surgeons, in comparison with high-volume surgeons, at high-volume hospitals,” and that Black patients were more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons, they said. “Although centralization of complex surgical care to higher-volume hospitals may have benefit, there are additional surgeon-level factors that must be considered to address disparities in access to high-quality care for patients undergoing hysterectomy.”

Explore range of issues to improve access

“It is always beneficial to review morbidity and mortality statistics,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., said in an interview. “With a heightened awareness of equity and equality, now is a good time to review the data with that focus in mind. Hospital committees review the data on a regular basis, but they may not have looked closely at demographics in the past.

“It was always my understanding that for many procedures, including surgery, volume impacts outcome, so the finding that low-volume surgeons had worse outcomes than high-volume surgeons was not particularly surprising,” said Dr. Bohon. However, the question of how hospitals might address disparities in access to high-volume surgeons “is a difficult question, because there are a variety of issues that may not be caused by disparities,” she added. “It may be that the high-volume surgeons do not take Medicare. It may be that some of the emergent/urgent surgeries come from patients seen in the ED and the high-volume surgeons may not take call or see new patients in the ED. There may be a difference in the preop testing done that may be more extensive with the high-volume surgeons as compared with the low-volume surgeons. It may be that it is easier to get an appointment with a low-volume rather than a high-volume surgeon.

“Additional research is needed to determine whether there is an algorithm that can be created to determine risk for morbidity or mortality based on factors such as the number of years in practice, the number of hysterectomies per year, and the age of the physician,” Dr. Bohon explained. “The patient data could include preexisting risk factors such as weight, preexisting medical conditions, prior surgeries, and current medications, along with demographics. It would be interesting to determine whether low-risk patients have similar outcomes with low- as compared with high-volume surgeons while high-risk patients do not. The demographics could then be evaluated to determine if disparities exist for both low- and high-risk patients.”

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed serving as a consultant for Clovis Oncology, receiving research funding from Merck, and receiving royalties from UpToDate. Lead author Dr. Knisely had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

Black women undergoing hysterectomies were significantly more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons than high-volume surgeons, and to experience perioperative complications as a result, based on data from more than 300,000 patients.

“Outcomes for hysterectomy, for both benign and malignant disease, are improved when the procedure is performed at high-volume hospitals and by high-volume surgeons,” Anne Knisely, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.

Historically, Black patients have been less likely to be referred to high-volume hospitals, the researchers noted. Recent efforts to regionalize surgical procedures to high-volume hospitals aim to reduce disparities and improve care for all patients, but the data on disparities in care within high-volume hospitals are limited, they said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 300,586 women who underwent hysterectomy in New York state between 2000 and 2014. The researchers divided surgeons at these hospitals into volume groups based on average annual hysterectomy volume.

The women were treated by 5,505 surgeons at 59 hospitals. Overall, Black women comprised significantly more of the patients treated by low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (19.4% vs. 14.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.26), and more women treated by low-volume surgeons had Medicare insurance compared with those treated by high-volume surgeons (20.6% vs. 14.5%; aOR, 1.22).

A majority of the patients (262,005 patients) were treated by a total of 1,377 high-volume surgeons, while 2,105 low-volume surgeons treated 2,900 patients. Abdominal hysterectomies accounted for 57.5% of the procedures, followed by laparoscopic (23.9%), vaginal (13.2%), and robotic assisted (5.3%). Approximately two-thirds (64.4%) of the patients were aged 40-59 years; 63.7% were White, 15.1% were Black, and 8.5% were Hispanic.

The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients treated by low-volume surgeons, compared with high-volume surgeons (31.0% vs. 10.3%), including intraoperative complications, surgical-site complications, medical complications, and transfusions. The perioperative mortality rate also was significantly higher for patients of low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (2.2% vs. 0.2%).

Low-volume surgeons were more likely to perform urgent or emergent procedures, compared with high-volume surgeons (26.1% vs 6.4%), and to perform abdominal hysterectomy versus minimally invasive hysterectomy compared with high-volume surgeons (77.8% vs. 54.7%), the researchers added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and possible undercoding of outcomes, inclusion only of New York state patients, lack of data on clinical characteristics such as surgical history and complexity, lack of data on surgeon characteristics, and changing practice patterns over time, the researchers noted.

However, “this study demonstrates increased perioperative morbidity and mortality for patients who underwent hysterectomy by low-volume surgeons, in comparison with high-volume surgeons, at high-volume hospitals,” and that Black patients were more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons, they said. “Although centralization of complex surgical care to higher-volume hospitals may have benefit, there are additional surgeon-level factors that must be considered to address disparities in access to high-quality care for patients undergoing hysterectomy.”

Explore range of issues to improve access

“It is always beneficial to review morbidity and mortality statistics,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., said in an interview. “With a heightened awareness of equity and equality, now is a good time to review the data with that focus in mind. Hospital committees review the data on a regular basis, but they may not have looked closely at demographics in the past.

“It was always my understanding that for many procedures, including surgery, volume impacts outcome, so the finding that low-volume surgeons had worse outcomes than high-volume surgeons was not particularly surprising,” said Dr. Bohon. However, the question of how hospitals might address disparities in access to high-volume surgeons “is a difficult question, because there are a variety of issues that may not be caused by disparities,” she added. “It may be that the high-volume surgeons do not take Medicare. It may be that some of the emergent/urgent surgeries come from patients seen in the ED and the high-volume surgeons may not take call or see new patients in the ED. There may be a difference in the preop testing done that may be more extensive with the high-volume surgeons as compared with the low-volume surgeons. It may be that it is easier to get an appointment with a low-volume rather than a high-volume surgeon.

“Additional research is needed to determine whether there is an algorithm that can be created to determine risk for morbidity or mortality based on factors such as the number of years in practice, the number of hysterectomies per year, and the age of the physician,” Dr. Bohon explained. “The patient data could include preexisting risk factors such as weight, preexisting medical conditions, prior surgeries, and current medications, along with demographics. It would be interesting to determine whether low-risk patients have similar outcomes with low- as compared with high-volume surgeons while high-risk patients do not. The demographics could then be evaluated to determine if disparities exist for both low- and high-risk patients.”

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed serving as a consultant for Clovis Oncology, receiving research funding from Merck, and receiving royalties from UpToDate. Lead author Dr. Knisely had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

Black women undergoing hysterectomies were significantly more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons than high-volume surgeons, and to experience perioperative complications as a result, based on data from more than 300,000 patients.

“Outcomes for hysterectomy, for both benign and malignant disease, are improved when the procedure is performed at high-volume hospitals and by high-volume surgeons,” Anne Knisely, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.

Historically, Black patients have been less likely to be referred to high-volume hospitals, the researchers noted. Recent efforts to regionalize surgical procedures to high-volume hospitals aim to reduce disparities and improve care for all patients, but the data on disparities in care within high-volume hospitals are limited, they said.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the researchers identified 300,586 women who underwent hysterectomy in New York state between 2000 and 2014. The researchers divided surgeons at these hospitals into volume groups based on average annual hysterectomy volume.

The women were treated by 5,505 surgeons at 59 hospitals. Overall, Black women comprised significantly more of the patients treated by low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (19.4% vs. 14.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.26), and more women treated by low-volume surgeons had Medicare insurance compared with those treated by high-volume surgeons (20.6% vs. 14.5%; aOR, 1.22).

A majority of the patients (262,005 patients) were treated by a total of 1,377 high-volume surgeons, while 2,105 low-volume surgeons treated 2,900 patients. Abdominal hysterectomies accounted for 57.5% of the procedures, followed by laparoscopic (23.9%), vaginal (13.2%), and robotic assisted (5.3%). Approximately two-thirds (64.4%) of the patients were aged 40-59 years; 63.7% were White, 15.1% were Black, and 8.5% were Hispanic.

The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients treated by low-volume surgeons, compared with high-volume surgeons (31.0% vs. 10.3%), including intraoperative complications, surgical-site complications, medical complications, and transfusions. The perioperative mortality rate also was significantly higher for patients of low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons (2.2% vs. 0.2%).

Low-volume surgeons were more likely to perform urgent or emergent procedures, compared with high-volume surgeons (26.1% vs 6.4%), and to perform abdominal hysterectomy versus minimally invasive hysterectomy compared with high-volume surgeons (77.8% vs. 54.7%), the researchers added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design and possible undercoding of outcomes, inclusion only of New York state patients, lack of data on clinical characteristics such as surgical history and complexity, lack of data on surgeon characteristics, and changing practice patterns over time, the researchers noted.

However, “this study demonstrates increased perioperative morbidity and mortality for patients who underwent hysterectomy by low-volume surgeons, in comparison with high-volume surgeons, at high-volume hospitals,” and that Black patients were more likely to be treated by low-volume surgeons, they said. “Although centralization of complex surgical care to higher-volume hospitals may have benefit, there are additional surgeon-level factors that must be considered to address disparities in access to high-quality care for patients undergoing hysterectomy.”

Explore range of issues to improve access

“It is always beneficial to review morbidity and mortality statistics,” Constance Bohon, MD, a gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., said in an interview. “With a heightened awareness of equity and equality, now is a good time to review the data with that focus in mind. Hospital committees review the data on a regular basis, but they may not have looked closely at demographics in the past.

“It was always my understanding that for many procedures, including surgery, volume impacts outcome, so the finding that low-volume surgeons had worse outcomes than high-volume surgeons was not particularly surprising,” said Dr. Bohon. However, the question of how hospitals might address disparities in access to high-volume surgeons “is a difficult question, because there are a variety of issues that may not be caused by disparities,” she added. “It may be that the high-volume surgeons do not take Medicare. It may be that some of the emergent/urgent surgeries come from patients seen in the ED and the high-volume surgeons may not take call or see new patients in the ED. There may be a difference in the preop testing done that may be more extensive with the high-volume surgeons as compared with the low-volume surgeons. It may be that it is easier to get an appointment with a low-volume rather than a high-volume surgeon.

“Additional research is needed to determine whether there is an algorithm that can be created to determine risk for morbidity or mortality based on factors such as the number of years in practice, the number of hysterectomies per year, and the age of the physician,” Dr. Bohon explained. “The patient data could include preexisting risk factors such as weight, preexisting medical conditions, prior surgeries, and current medications, along with demographics. It would be interesting to determine whether low-risk patients have similar outcomes with low- as compared with high-volume surgeons while high-risk patients do not. The demographics could then be evaluated to determine if disparities exist for both low- and high-risk patients.”

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed serving as a consultant for Clovis Oncology, receiving research funding from Merck, and receiving royalties from UpToDate. Lead author Dr. Knisely had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bohon had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

Clinicians in obstetric units place nearly twice as many wrong-patient orders as their medical-surgical counterparts, based on a retrospective look at more than 1.3 million orders.

These findings suggest that obstetric patients are at particular risk for this type of medical error, and that steps are needed to address obstetric clinical culture, work flow, and electronic medical record interfaces, reported lead author Adina R. Kern-Goldberger, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The root of the issue may come from the very nature of obstetrics, and the homogeneity of the patient population, they wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Obstetrics is a unique clinical environment because all patients are admitted with a common diagnosis – pregnancy – and have much more overlap in demographic characteristics than a typical inpatient unit given that they are all females of reproductive age,” the investigators wrote. “The labor and delivery environment also is distinct in the hospital given its dynamic tempo and unpredictable work flow. There also is the added risk of neonates typically being registered in the hospital record under the mother’s name after birth. This generates abundant opportunity for errors in order placement, both between obstetric patients and between postpartum patients and their newborns.”

To determine the relative magnitude of this risk, Dr. Kern-Goldberger and colleagues analyzed EMRs from 45,436 obstetric patients and 12,915 medical-surgical patients at “a large, urban, integrated health system in New York City,” including 1,329,463 order sessions placed between 2016 and 2018.

The primary outcome was near-miss wrong-patient orders, which were identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder measure.

“The measure uses an electronic query to detect retract-and-reorder events, defined as one or more orders placed for patient A, canceled by the same clinician within 10 minutes, and reordered by the same clinician for patient B within the next 10 minutes,” the investigators wrote.In obstetric units, 79.5 wrong-patient orders were placed per 100,000 order sessions, which was 98% higher than the rate of 42.3 wrong-patient orders per 100,000 order sessions in medical-surgical units (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-2.39), a disparity that was observed across clinician types and times of day.Advanced practice clinicians in obstetrics placed 47.3 wrong-patient orders per 100,000 order sessions, which was significantly lower than that of their colleagues: attending physicians (127.0 per 100,000) and house staff (119.9 per 100,000).

Wrong-patient orders in obstetrics most often involved medication (73.2 per 100,000), particularly nifedipine, antibiotics, tocolytics, and nonoxytocin uterotonics. The “other” category, including but not limited to lab studies and nursing orders, was associated with 51.0 wrong-patient orders per 100,000 order sessions, while errors in diagnostic imaging orders followed distantly behind, at a rate of 5.7 per 1000,000.

“Although the obstetric clinical environment – particularly labor and delivery – is vibrant and frequently chaotic, it is critical to establish a calm, orderly, and safe culture around order entry,” the investigators wrote. “This, combined with efforts to improve house staff work flow and to optimize EMR interfaces, is likely to help mitigate the threat of wrong order errors to patient care and ultimately improve maternal health and safety.”

According to Catherine D. Cansino, MD, associate clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis (Calif.) Health, the findings highlight the value of medical informatics while revealing a need to improve EMR interfaces.

“Medical informatics is a growing field and expertise among ob.gyns. is very important,” Dr. Cansino said in an interview. “This study by Kern-Goldberger and colleagues highlights the vulnerability of our EMR systems (and our patients, indirectly) when medical informatics systems are not optimized. The investigators present a study that advocates for greater emphasis on optimizing such systems in obstetrics units, especially in the context of high acuity settings such as obstetrics, compared to medical-surgical units. Appropriately, the study highlights the avoided harm when correcting medical errors for obstetric patients since such errors potentially affect both the delivering patient and the newborn.”

The study was funded by AHRQ. One coauthor disclosed funding from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Georgetown University, the National Institutes of Health – Office of Scientific Review, and the Social Science Research Council. Another reported funding from Roche.

Clinicians in obstetric units place nearly twice as many wrong-patient orders as their medical-surgical counterparts, based on a retrospective look at more than 1.3 million orders.

These findings suggest that obstetric patients are at particular risk for this type of medical error, and that steps are needed to address obstetric clinical culture, work flow, and electronic medical record interfaces, reported lead author Adina R. Kern-Goldberger, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The root of the issue may come from the very nature of obstetrics, and the homogeneity of the patient population, they wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Obstetrics is a unique clinical environment because all patients are admitted with a common diagnosis – pregnancy – and have much more overlap in demographic characteristics than a typical inpatient unit given that they are all females of reproductive age,” the investigators wrote. “The labor and delivery environment also is distinct in the hospital given its dynamic tempo and unpredictable work flow. There also is the added risk of neonates typically being registered in the hospital record under the mother’s name after birth. This generates abundant opportunity for errors in order placement, both between obstetric patients and between postpartum patients and their newborns.”

To determine the relative magnitude of this risk, Dr. Kern-Goldberger and colleagues analyzed EMRs from 45,436 obstetric patients and 12,915 medical-surgical patients at “a large, urban, integrated health system in New York City,” including 1,329,463 order sessions placed between 2016 and 2018.

The primary outcome was near-miss wrong-patient orders, which were identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder measure.

“The measure uses an electronic query to detect retract-and-reorder events, defined as one or more orders placed for patient A, canceled by the same clinician within 10 minutes, and reordered by the same clinician for patient B within the next 10 minutes,” the investigators wrote.In obstetric units, 79.5 wrong-patient orders were placed per 100,000 order sessions, which was 98% higher than the rate of 42.3 wrong-patient orders per 100,000 order sessions in medical-surgical units (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-2.39), a disparity that was observed across clinician types and times of day.Advanced practice clinicians in obstetrics placed 47.3 wrong-patient orders per 100,000 order sessions, which was significantly lower than that of their colleagues: attending physicians (127.0 per 100,000) and house staff (119.9 per 100,000).

Wrong-patient orders in obstetrics most often involved medication (73.2 per 100,000), particularly nifedipine, antibiotics, tocolytics, and nonoxytocin uterotonics. The “other” category, including but not limited to lab studies and nursing orders, was associated with 51.0 wrong-patient orders per 100,000 order sessions, while errors in diagnostic imaging orders followed distantly behind, at a rate of 5.7 per 1000,000.

“Although the obstetric clinical environment – particularly labor and delivery – is vibrant and frequently chaotic, it is critical to establish a calm, orderly, and safe culture around order entry,” the investigators wrote. “This, combined with efforts to improve house staff work flow and to optimize EMR interfaces, is likely to help mitigate the threat of wrong order errors to patient care and ultimately improve maternal health and safety.”

According to Catherine D. Cansino, MD, associate clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis (Calif.) Health, the findings highlight the value of medical informatics while revealing a need to improve EMR interfaces.

“Medical informatics is a growing field and expertise among ob.gyns. is very important,” Dr. Cansino said in an interview. “This study by Kern-Goldberger and colleagues highlights the vulnerability of our EMR systems (and our patients, indirectly) when medical informatics systems are not optimized. The investigators present a study that advocates for greater emphasis on optimizing such systems in obstetrics units, especially in the context of high acuity settings such as obstetrics, compared to medical-surgical units. Appropriately, the study highlights the avoided harm when correcting medical errors for obstetric patients since such errors potentially affect both the delivering patient and the newborn.”

The study was funded by AHRQ. One coauthor disclosed funding from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Georgetown University, the National Institutes of Health – Office of Scientific Review, and the Social Science Research Council. Another reported funding from Roche.

Clinicians in obstetric units place nearly twice as many wrong-patient orders as their medical-surgical counterparts, based on a retrospective look at more than 1.3 million orders.

These findings suggest that obstetric patients are at particular risk for this type of medical error, and that steps are needed to address obstetric clinical culture, work flow, and electronic medical record interfaces, reported lead author Adina R. Kern-Goldberger, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

The root of the issue may come from the very nature of obstetrics, and the homogeneity of the patient population, they wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Obstetrics is a unique clinical environment because all patients are admitted with a common diagnosis – pregnancy – and have much more overlap in demographic characteristics than a typical inpatient unit given that they are all females of reproductive age,” the investigators wrote. “The labor and delivery environment also is distinct in the hospital given its dynamic tempo and unpredictable work flow. There also is the added risk of neonates typically being registered in the hospital record under the mother’s name after birth. This generates abundant opportunity for errors in order placement, both between obstetric patients and between postpartum patients and their newborns.”

To determine the relative magnitude of this risk, Dr. Kern-Goldberger and colleagues analyzed EMRs from 45,436 obstetric patients and 12,915 medical-surgical patients at “a large, urban, integrated health system in New York City,” including 1,329,463 order sessions placed between 2016 and 2018.

The primary outcome was near-miss wrong-patient orders, which were identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder measure.

“The measure uses an electronic query to detect retract-and-reorder events, defined as one or more orders placed for patient A, canceled by the same clinician within 10 minutes, and reordered by the same clinician for patient B within the next 10 minutes,” the investigators wrote.In obstetric units, 79.5 wrong-patient orders were placed per 100,000 order sessions, which was 98% higher than the rate of 42.3 wrong-patient orders per 100,000 order sessions in medical-surgical units (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-2.39), a disparity that was observed across clinician types and times of day.Advanced practice clinicians in obstetrics placed 47.3 wrong-patient orders per 100,000 order sessions, which was significantly lower than that of their colleagues: attending physicians (127.0 per 100,000) and house staff (119.9 per 100,000).

Wrong-patient orders in obstetrics most often involved medication (73.2 per 100,000), particularly nifedipine, antibiotics, tocolytics, and nonoxytocin uterotonics. The “other” category, including but not limited to lab studies and nursing orders, was associated with 51.0 wrong-patient orders per 100,000 order sessions, while errors in diagnostic imaging orders followed distantly behind, at a rate of 5.7 per 1000,000.

“Although the obstetric clinical environment – particularly labor and delivery – is vibrant and frequently chaotic, it is critical to establish a calm, orderly, and safe culture around order entry,” the investigators wrote. “This, combined with efforts to improve house staff work flow and to optimize EMR interfaces, is likely to help mitigate the threat of wrong order errors to patient care and ultimately improve maternal health and safety.”

According to Catherine D. Cansino, MD, associate clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis (Calif.) Health, the findings highlight the value of medical informatics while revealing a need to improve EMR interfaces.

“Medical informatics is a growing field and expertise among ob.gyns. is very important,” Dr. Cansino said in an interview. “This study by Kern-Goldberger and colleagues highlights the vulnerability of our EMR systems (and our patients, indirectly) when medical informatics systems are not optimized. The investigators present a study that advocates for greater emphasis on optimizing such systems in obstetrics units, especially in the context of high acuity settings such as obstetrics, compared to medical-surgical units. Appropriately, the study highlights the avoided harm when correcting medical errors for obstetric patients since such errors potentially affect both the delivering patient and the newborn.”

The study was funded by AHRQ. One coauthor disclosed funding from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Georgetown University, the National Institutes of Health – Office of Scientific Review, and the Social Science Research Council. Another reported funding from Roche.

A 46-year-old woman presents with fatigue. She reports that she has had unusually heavy periods for the past 6 months. Her blood work shows a hematocrit level of 32, a mean corpuscular volume of 77, a platelet count of 390,000, and a ferritin level of 5.

What would you recommend for iron replacement?

A. FeSO₄ 325 mg three times a day with vitamin C

B. FeSO₄ 325 mg daily with vitamin C

C. FeSO₄ 325 mg every other day

Recommendations and supporting research

I think I would start with choice C, FeSO₄ every other day.

Treatment of iron deficiency with oral iron has traditionally been done by giving 150-200 mg of elemental iron (which is equal to three 325 mg tablets of iron sulfate).¹ This dosing regimen has considerable gastrointestinal side effects. Recent evidence has shown that iron absorption is diminished the more frequently it is given.

Stoffel and colleagues found that fractional iron absorption was higher in iron-deficient women who were given iron every other day, compared with those who received daily iron.² They also found that the more frequently iron was administered, the higher the hepcidin levels were, and the lower the iron absorption.

Karacok and colleagues studied every other day iron versus daily iron for the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia of pregnancy.³ A total of 217 women completed randomization and participated in the study, with all women receiving 100 mg of elemental iron, either daily (111) or every other day (106). There was no significant difference in increase in ferritin levels, or hemoglobin increase between the groups. The daily iron group had more gastrointestinal symptoms (41.4%) than the every other day iron group (15.1%) (P < .0057).

Düzen Oflas and colleagues looked at the same question in nonpregnant women with iron deficiency anemia.⁴ Study patients either received 80 mg iron sulfate twice a day, 80 mg once a day, or 80 mg every other day. There was no statistically significant difference in hemoglobin improvement between groups, but the group that received twice a day dosing of iron had statistically significantly higher ferritin levels than the daily or every other day iron groups. This improvement in ferritin levels came at a cost, though, as 68% of patients in the twice daily iron group had gastrointestinal symptoms, compared with only 10% in the every other day iron group (P < .01).

Vitamin C is often recommended to be taken with iron to promote absorption. The evidence for this practice is scant, and dates back almost 50 years.^5,6

Cook and Reddy found there was no significant difference in mean iron absorption among the three dietary periods studied in 12 patients despite a range of mean daily intakes of dietary vitamin C of 51-247 mg/d.⁷

Hunt and colleagues studied 25 non pregnant, healthy women with low ferritin levels.⁸ The women’s meals were supplemented with vitamin C (500 mg, three times a day) for 5 of the 10 weeks, in a double-blind, crossover design. Vitamin C supplementation did not lead to a difference in iron absorption, lab indices of iron deficiency, or the biological half-life of iron.

Li and colleagues looked at the effect of vitamin C supplementation on iron levels in women with iron deficiency anemia.⁹ A total of 440 women were recruited, with 432 completing the trial. Women were randomized to receive iron supplements plus vitamin C or iron supplements only. Their findings were that oral iron supplements alone were equivalent to oral iron supplements plus vitamin C in improving hemoglobin recovery and iron absorption.
 

Bottom line

Less frequent administration of iron supplements (every other day) is as effective as more frequent administration, with less GI symptoms. Also, adding vitamin C does not appear to improve absorption of iron supplements.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. 1. Fairbanks VF and Beutler E. Iron deficiency, in “Williams Textbook of Hematology, 6th ed.” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001).

2. Stoffel N et al. Lancet Haematology. 2017;4: e524-33.

3. Karakoc G et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Apr 18:1-5

4. Düzen Oflas N et al. Intern Med J. 2020 Jul;50(7):854-8

5. Cook JD and Monsen ER. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977;30:235-41.

6. Hallberg L etal. Hum Nutr Appl Nutr. 1986;40: 97-113.

7. Cook JD and Reddy M. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73:93-8.

8. Hunt JR et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jun;59(6):1381-5.

9. Li N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2023644.

A 46-year-old woman presents with fatigue. She reports that she has had unusually heavy periods for the past 6 months. Her blood work shows a hematocrit level of 32, a mean corpuscular volume of 77, a platelet count of 390,000, and a ferritin level of 5.

What would you recommend for iron replacement?

A. FeSO₄ 325 mg three times a day with vitamin C

B. FeSO₄ 325 mg daily with vitamin C

C. FeSO₄ 325 mg every other day

Recommendations and supporting research

I think I would start with choice C, FeSO₄ every other day.

Treatment of iron deficiency with oral iron has traditionally been done by giving 150-200 mg of elemental iron (which is equal to three 325 mg tablets of iron sulfate).¹ This dosing regimen has considerable gastrointestinal side effects. Recent evidence has shown that iron absorption is diminished the more frequently it is given.

Stoffel and colleagues found that fractional iron absorption was higher in iron-deficient women who were given iron every other day, compared with those who received daily iron.² They also found that the more frequently iron was administered, the higher the hepcidin levels were, and the lower the iron absorption.

Karacok and colleagues studied every other day iron versus daily iron for the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia of pregnancy.³ A total of 217 women completed randomization and participated in the study, with all women receiving 100 mg of elemental iron, either daily (111) or every other day (106). There was no significant difference in increase in ferritin levels, or hemoglobin increase between the groups. The daily iron group had more gastrointestinal symptoms (41.4%) than the every other day iron group (15.1%) (P < .0057).

Düzen Oflas and colleagues looked at the same question in nonpregnant women with iron deficiency anemia.⁴ Study patients either received 80 mg iron sulfate twice a day, 80 mg once a day, or 80 mg every other day. There was no statistically significant difference in hemoglobin improvement between groups, but the group that received twice a day dosing of iron had statistically significantly higher ferritin levels than the daily or every other day iron groups. This improvement in ferritin levels came at a cost, though, as 68% of patients in the twice daily iron group had gastrointestinal symptoms, compared with only 10% in the every other day iron group (P < .01).

Vitamin C is often recommended to be taken with iron to promote absorption. The evidence for this practice is scant, and dates back almost 50 years.^5,6

Cook and Reddy found there was no significant difference in mean iron absorption among the three dietary periods studied in 12 patients despite a range of mean daily intakes of dietary vitamin C of 51-247 mg/d.⁷

Hunt and colleagues studied 25 non pregnant, healthy women with low ferritin levels.⁸ The women’s meals were supplemented with vitamin C (500 mg, three times a day) for 5 of the 10 weeks, in a double-blind, crossover design. Vitamin C supplementation did not lead to a difference in iron absorption, lab indices of iron deficiency, or the biological half-life of iron.

Li and colleagues looked at the effect of vitamin C supplementation on iron levels in women with iron deficiency anemia.⁹ A total of 440 women were recruited, with 432 completing the trial. Women were randomized to receive iron supplements plus vitamin C or iron supplements only. Their findings were that oral iron supplements alone were equivalent to oral iron supplements plus vitamin C in improving hemoglobin recovery and iron absorption.
 

Bottom line

Less frequent administration of iron supplements (every other day) is as effective as more frequent administration, with less GI symptoms. Also, adding vitamin C does not appear to improve absorption of iron supplements.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. 1. Fairbanks VF and Beutler E. Iron deficiency, in “Williams Textbook of Hematology, 6th ed.” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001).

2. Stoffel N et al. Lancet Haematology. 2017;4: e524-33.

3. Karakoc G et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Apr 18:1-5

4. Düzen Oflas N et al. Intern Med J. 2020 Jul;50(7):854-8

5. Cook JD and Monsen ER. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977;30:235-41.

6. Hallberg L etal. Hum Nutr Appl Nutr. 1986;40: 97-113.

7. Cook JD and Reddy M. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73:93-8.

8. Hunt JR et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jun;59(6):1381-5.

9. Li N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2023644.

A 46-year-old woman presents with fatigue. She reports that she has had unusually heavy periods for the past 6 months. Her blood work shows a hematocrit level of 32, a mean corpuscular volume of 77, a platelet count of 390,000, and a ferritin level of 5.

What would you recommend for iron replacement?

A. FeSO₄ 325 mg three times a day with vitamin C

B. FeSO₄ 325 mg daily with vitamin C

C. FeSO₄ 325 mg every other day

Recommendations and supporting research

I think I would start with choice C, FeSO₄ every other day.

Treatment of iron deficiency with oral iron has traditionally been done by giving 150-200 mg of elemental iron (which is equal to three 325 mg tablets of iron sulfate).¹ This dosing regimen has considerable gastrointestinal side effects. Recent evidence has shown that iron absorption is diminished the more frequently it is given.

Stoffel and colleagues found that fractional iron absorption was higher in iron-deficient women who were given iron every other day, compared with those who received daily iron.² They also found that the more frequently iron was administered, the higher the hepcidin levels were, and the lower the iron absorption.

Karacok and colleagues studied every other day iron versus daily iron for the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia of pregnancy.³ A total of 217 women completed randomization and participated in the study, with all women receiving 100 mg of elemental iron, either daily (111) or every other day (106). There was no significant difference in increase in ferritin levels, or hemoglobin increase between the groups. The daily iron group had more gastrointestinal symptoms (41.4%) than the every other day iron group (15.1%) (P < .0057).

Düzen Oflas and colleagues looked at the same question in nonpregnant women with iron deficiency anemia.⁴ Study patients either received 80 mg iron sulfate twice a day, 80 mg once a day, or 80 mg every other day. There was no statistically significant difference in hemoglobin improvement between groups, but the group that received twice a day dosing of iron had statistically significantly higher ferritin levels than the daily or every other day iron groups. This improvement in ferritin levels came at a cost, though, as 68% of patients in the twice daily iron group had gastrointestinal symptoms, compared with only 10% in the every other day iron group (P < .01).

Vitamin C is often recommended to be taken with iron to promote absorption. The evidence for this practice is scant, and dates back almost 50 years.^5,6

Cook and Reddy found there was no significant difference in mean iron absorption among the three dietary periods studied in 12 patients despite a range of mean daily intakes of dietary vitamin C of 51-247 mg/d.⁷

Hunt and colleagues studied 25 non pregnant, healthy women with low ferritin levels.⁸ The women’s meals were supplemented with vitamin C (500 mg, three times a day) for 5 of the 10 weeks, in a double-blind, crossover design. Vitamin C supplementation did not lead to a difference in iron absorption, lab indices of iron deficiency, or the biological half-life of iron.

Li and colleagues looked at the effect of vitamin C supplementation on iron levels in women with iron deficiency anemia.⁹ A total of 440 women were recruited, with 432 completing the trial. Women were randomized to receive iron supplements plus vitamin C or iron supplements only. Their findings were that oral iron supplements alone were equivalent to oral iron supplements plus vitamin C in improving hemoglobin recovery and iron absorption.
 

Bottom line

Less frequent administration of iron supplements (every other day) is as effective as more frequent administration, with less GI symptoms. Also, adding vitamin C does not appear to improve absorption of iron supplements.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. 1. Fairbanks VF and Beutler E. Iron deficiency, in “Williams Textbook of Hematology, 6th ed.” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001).

2. Stoffel N et al. Lancet Haematology. 2017;4: e524-33.

3. Karakoc G et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021 Apr 18:1-5

4. Düzen Oflas N et al. Intern Med J. 2020 Jul;50(7):854-8

5. Cook JD and Monsen ER. Am J Clin Nutr. 1977;30:235-41.

6. Hallberg L etal. Hum Nutr Appl Nutr. 1986;40: 97-113.

7. Cook JD and Reddy M. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73:93-8.

8. Hunt JR et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jun;59(6):1381-5.

9. Li N et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2023644.