Obstetric and Gynecological Admissions and Hospitalizations in an Italian Tertiary-Care Hospital during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Analysis According to Restrictive Measures.

BACKGROUND: The national lockdown and the different restrictions applied in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic brought several changes to hospitalization procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the patterns in access to emergency services and hospitalization in a tertiary-care obstetric and gynecological emergency department (OG-ED) throughout the restrictions applied during 2020. METHODS: A single-center retrospective comparative study on data from January to December 2020 was carried out on the following timeframes: January to February 2020 (before COVID-19 pandemic), March to June 2020 (nationwide lockdown period), July to September 2020 (removal of restrictive measures), October to December 2020 (regional lockdown) and compared to the same periods of 2019. All obstetric and gynecological patients with complete medical data admitted to the OG-ED were included. RESULTS: Overall, 4233 accesses for 2019 and 3652 for 2020 were reported, with a decreasing trend of -13.7%. Between March and June 2020 (nationwide lockdown) and 2019, the overall number of patients attending the OG-ED decreased compared to July-September and October-December differences (Δ -23.5% vs. -3.1% and -5.9%; p = 0.001 respectively) for 2020-2019, but this reduction was not statistically significant when compared to January-February (Δ -23.5% vs. -18.5%; p = 0.356). No significant differences for obstetric patients (Δ -1.8% vs. -1.0% vs. -2.3% and +1.9% respectively; p = 0.883) were noted. Hospitalizations showed a stable trend with an increase between October-December 2019 and 2020 (Δ +4.6%; p = 0.001 vs. January-February (+2.4%) and March-June (+2.6%) 2019-2020), mainly related to regional lockdowns. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to available national studies, in our institution, the overall rate of OG-ED admissions was slightly reduced with a similar trend of decrease even before COVID-19, with an increase in admissions for serious issues, despite expectations that the suspension of elective admissions and outpatient services would have led to an increase in non-urgent hospitalizations during the COVID-19 lockdown period.

The Oncological Implication of Sentinel Lymph Node in Early Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Oncological Outcomes and Type of Recurrences.

Background and Objectives: Pelvic lymphadenectomy has been associated with radical hysterectomy for the treatment of early Cervical Cancer (ECC) since 1905. However, some complications are related to this technique, such as lymphedema and nerve damage. In addition, its clinical role is controversial. For this reason, the sentinel lymph node (SLN) has found increasing use in clinical practice over time. Oncologic safety, however, is debated, and there is no clear evidence in the literature regarding this. Therefore, our meta-analysis aims to schematically analyze the current scientific evidence to investigate the non-inferiority of SLN versus PLND regarding oncologic outcomes. Materials and Methods: Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, we systematically searched the PubMed and Scopus databases in June 2022 since their early first publications. We made no restrictions on the country. We considered only studies entirely published in English. We included studies containing Disease-Free Survival (DFS), Overall Survival (OS), Recurrence Rate (RR), and site of recurrence data. We used comparative studies for meta-analysis. We registered this meta-analysis to the PROSPERO site for meta-analysis with protocol number CRD42022316650. Results: Twelve studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. The four comparative studies were enrolled in meta-analysis. Patients were analyzed concerning Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy (SLN) and compared with Bilateral Pelvic Systematic Lymphadenectomy (PLND) in early-stage Cervical Cancer (ECC). Meta-analysis highlighted no differences in oncological safety between these two techniques, both in DFS and OS. Moreover, most of the sites of recurrences in the SLN group seemed not to be correlated with missed lymphadenectomy. Conclusions: Data in the literature do not seem to show clear oncologic inferiority of SLN over PLND. On the contrary, the higher detection rate of positive lymph nodes and the predominance of no lymph node recurrences give hope that this technique may equal PLND in oncologic terms, improving its morbidity profile.

Oncological outcomes in fertility-sparing treatment in stage IA-G2 endometrial cancer.

Background: The gold standard treatment for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC) is hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) with lymphadenectomy. In selected patients desiring pregnancy, fertility-sparing treatment (FST) can be adopted. Our review aims to collect the most incisive studies about the possibility of conservative management for patients with grade 2, stage IA EC. Different approaches can be considered beyond demolition surgery, such as local treatment with levonorgestrel-releasing intra-uterine device (LNG-IUD) plus systemic therapy with progestins. Study design: Our systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were consulted, and five studies were chosen based on the following criteria: patients with a histological diagnosis of EC stage IA G2 in reproductive age desiring pregnancy and at least one oncological outcome evaluated. Search imputes were "endometrial cancer" AND "fertility sparing" AND "oncologic outcomes" AND "G2 or stage IA". Results: A total of 103 patients were included and treated with a combination of LNG-IUD plus megestrol acetate (MA) or medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) plus MPA/MA, hysteroscopic resectoscope (HR), and dilation and curettage (D&C). There is evidence of 70% to 85% complete response after second-round therapy prolongation to 12 months. Conclusions: Conservative measures must be considered temporary to allow pregnancy and subsequently perform specific counseling to adopt surgery. Fertility-sparing management is not the current standard of care for young women with EC. It can be employed for patients with early-stage diseases motivated to maintain reproductive function. Indeed, the results are encouraging, but the sample size must be increased.

Fertility-Sparing Treatment for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer ≥ 2 cm: A Problem with a Thousand Nuances-A Systematic Review of Oncological Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Fertility-sparing treatments (FSTs) have played a crucial role in the management of early-stage cervical cancer (ECC). The guidelines have recognized various approaches, depending on the tumor stage and other risk factors such as histotype and lymphovascular positivity. Much more debate has centered around the boundary within which these treatments should be considered. Indeed, these are methods to be reserved for ECC, but tumor size may represent the most significant limitation. In particular, there is no consensus on the strategy to be adopted in the case of ECC ≥ 2 cm. Therefore, this systematic review was to collect the literature evidence regarding the management of these patients. METHODS: Following the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, we systematically searched the Pubmed and Scopus databases was conducted in April 2022, from the date of the first publication. We made no limitation on the country. We included all studies containing data on disease-free survival, overall survival, recurrence rate (RR), or complete response rate (CRR) to chemotherapy. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and 691 patients were analyzed regarding FST. Surgery-based FST showed an RR of between 0 and 42.9%, which drops to 12.9% after excluding the vaginal or minimally invasive approaches. Furthermore, papers regarding FST based on the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) approach showed a CRR of between 21.4 and 84.5%, and an RR of between 0 and 22.2% CONCLUSION: This paper focused on the significant heterogeneity present in the clinical management of FST of ECC ≥ 2 cm. Nevertheless, from an oncological point of view, approaches limited to the minimally invasive or vaginal techniques showed the highest RR. Vice versa, the lack of standardization of NACT schemes and the wealth of confounders to be attributed to the histological features of the tumor make it difficult, if not impossible, to set a standard of treatment.