Correlation between ultrasound findings and laparoscopy in prediction of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE).

BACKGROUND: Detailed pre-operative description of endometriotic lesions by non-invasive methods is an important tool for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment of the disease. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) is a sensitive method for diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE); however, it is highly operator-dependent and consistent results require adequately trained and experienced clinicians. AIMS: The aim of the study is to assess the accuracy of TVUS in predicting DIE by comparing it with laparoscopic findings. We also compared US done in the community by general radiologists with examinations done by specialist gynaecologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent laparoscopy for excision of possible endometriosis between July 2014 to February 2019 who had a TVUS prior to laparoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were included. TVUS was shown to be useful in detecting all but bladder DIE. Community TVUS was no better than chance at identifying most DIE (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.48-0.60) except in the detection of ovarian endometriomas and adhesions (AUC = 0.84). Specialist TVUS correctly identified most DIE with greatest utility for DIE in rectosigmoid (AUC = 0.85, P < 0.000), followed by pouch of Douglas/pouch of Douglas adhesions (AUC = 0.82, P < 0.000), ovarian endometriomas/ovarian adhesions (AUC = 0.79, P < 0.000), uterosacral ligaments (AUC = 0.75, P < 0.000) and rectovaginal septum (AUC = 0.69, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Specialist TVUS is informative in examining the presence of DIE particularly in posterior compartments which may increase surgical complexity. Community TVUS is significantly less beneficial; however, it is more accessible to the general public. This adds to the argument that increasing access to DIE-TVUS appears favourable.

Treatment Intensity Differences After Early-Stage Breast Cancer (ESBC) Diagnosis Depending on Participation in a Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: While population mammographic screening identifies early-stage breast cancers (ESBCs; ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] and invasive disease stages 1-3A), commentaries suggest that harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment may outweigh the benefits. Apparent benefits to patients with screen-detected cancers may be due to selection bias from exclusion of interval cancers (ICs). Treatment intensity is rarely discussed, with an assumption that all ESBCs are treated similarly. We hypothesized that women diagnosed while in a screening program would receive less-intense treatment than those never or not recently screened (NRS). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of all women aged 50-69 years managed for ESBC (invasive or DCIS) during the period 2007-2013 within a single service, comparing treatment according to screening status. Data on demographics, detection, pathology, and treatment were derived from hospital, cancer registry, and screening service records. RESULTS: Overall, 622 patients were active screeners (AS) at diagnosis (569 screen-detected and 53 ICs) and 169 patients were NRS. AS cancers were smaller (17 mm vs. 26 mm, p < 0.0001), less likely to involve nodes (26% vs. 48%, p < 0.0001), and lower grade. For invasive cancer, NRS patients were more likely to be recommended for mastectomies [35% vs. 16%; risk ratio(RR) 2.2, p < 0.0001], axillary dissection (43% vs. 19%; RR 2.3, p < 0.0001), adjuvant chemotherapy (65% vs. 37%; RR 1.7, p < 0.0001), and postmastectomy radiotherapy (58% vs. 39%; RR 1.5, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Participants in population screening diagnosed with ESBC receive substantially less-intense treatment than non-participants. Differences persist when potential overdiagnosis is taken into account; these differences should be factored into debates around mammographic screening.

Uptake of adjuvant breast cancer treatments recommended by multi-disciplinary meetings.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is routinely discussed and recommended in multi-disciplinary meetings (MDMs). Current literature explores how treatments received by patients differ from national guidelines; however, it does not explore whether treatment is concordant with MDMs. This study provides an Australian perspective on the uptake of MDM recommendations and reasons for non-concordance. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients with breast cancer presented at The Royal Melbourne Hospital MDM in 2010 and 2014 to investigate the concordance between MDM recommendations and treatment received. RESULTS: The study group comprised 441 patients (161 from 2010 and 280 from 2014). A total of 375 patients were included in the analyses. Overall, 82% of patients had perfect concordance between recommended and received treatment for all modes of adjuvant therapy. Concordance to endocrine therapy was higher for invasive cancers than ductal carcinoma in situ (97% versus 81%, P < 0.0001). Concordance to radiotherapy was high and did not differ according to type of cancer or surgery (ranging from 88 to 91%). Concordance to chemotherapy recommendations was high overall (92%) and did not vary with nodal status. Women aged over 65 years were least likely to be recommended for adjuvant therapy but most likely to concordant with the recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of MDM-recommended treatments is high. There is a minority of patients in whom MDM recommendations are not followed, highlighting that there are extra steps between recommendations at an MDM and decisions with patients. More attention to this issue is appropriate, and the reasons for non-concordance warrant further study.