Outcome measures reported following feminizing genital gender affirmation surgery for transgender women and gender diverse individuals: A systematic review.

Background: Feminizing genital gender affirmation surgery (fgGAS) may be an essential adjunct in the care of some transgender women and gender diverse individuals with gender incongruence. However, the comparison of different techniques of fgGAS may be confounded by variable outcome reporting and the use of inconsistent outcomes in the literature. This systematic review provides the most in-depth examination of fgGAS studies to date, and summarizes all reported outcomes, definitions, and the times when outcomes were assessed following these surgical interventions. Aims/Methods: This work intends to quantify the levels of outcome variability and definition heterogeneity in this expanding field and provides guidance on outcome reporting for future study authors. Candidate studies for this systematic review were sourced via an electronic, multi-database literature search. All primary, clinical research studies of fgGAS were included with no date limits. Paired collaborators screened each study for inclusion and performed data extraction to document the outcomes, definitions, and times of outcome assessment following fgGAS. Results: After screening 1225 studies, 93 studies proceeded to data extraction, representing 7681 patients. 2621 separate individual outcomes were reported, 857 (32.7%) were defined, and the time of outcome assessment was given for 1856 outcomes (70.8%) but relied on nonspecific ranges of follow-up dates. "Attainment of orgasm", "Neovaginal stenosis", and "Neovaginal depth/length" were among the most commonly reported outcomes. Profound heterogeneity existed in the definitions used for these and for all outcomes reported in general. Discussion: The results demonstrate a need for clear outcomes, agreed definitions, and times of outcome assessment following fgGAS in transgender women and gender diverse individuals. The adoption of a consistent set of outcomes and definitions reported by all future studies of fgGAS (a Core Outcome Set) will aid in improving treatment comparisons in this patient group. This review is the first step in that process.

Pulmonary Function Tests as a Biomarker in Diffuse Idiopathic Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Cell Hyperplasia Patients Treated With Somatostatin Analogues.

Diffuse idiopathic pulmonary neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia (DIPNECH) describes an indolent, under-recognised and poorly understood pulmonary condition with fewer than 200 reported cases across the literature. Currently, cases are diagnosed following a biopsy of the primary lesion, with treatment options centring on symptomatic benefit as opposed to targeting the underlying aetiology. Classically, DIPNECH lesions have been described as slow growing and benign, but with growing awareness of the condition, reports of metastatic disease with significant symptomatic burden have been reported. However, effectively addressing the subset of DIPNECH patients with greater metastatic potential remains an unmet clinical need. Due to the similarities between DIPNECH and carcinoid patients, several centres have considered using somatostatin analogues to not only help symptomatically but also to initiate tumour regression. However, to date, there are limited biomarkers to help evaluate the benefit of such options. In this review, we consider the use of pulmonary function tests (PFTs) to help quantify the benefit of somatostatin analogues. Although much of the evidence stems from small single-centre studies, the use of PFTs within the treatment pathway for both localised and metastatic DIPNECH represents a meaningful improvement from subjective monitoring of disease.