Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ during pregnancy and subsequent fertility-sparing therapy challenge.

OBJECTIVE: Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the cervix is a premalignant lesion, and a precursor of invasive disease. It is less frequent than its squamous counterpart. During pregnancy, AIS is a scarcely described scenario, whose diagnosis barely differs from non-pregnant patients. Its management is challenging with hysterectomy being the definitive treatment. However, its high incidence in young patients makes fertility-sparing management an approachable option for selected patients. The objective of this study is twofold. Firstly, we describe a case of a patient with AIS during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Secondly, the available literature is reviewed. METHODS: Retrospective medical record review of a single case and a medical literature search in Pubmed of AIS cases in pregnant women. RESULTS: A 31-year-old woman with cervical AIS diagnosed during pregnancy underwent serial fertility-sparing surgeries including a loop electrosurgical excision procedure and endocervical curettage during the second trimester, and a re-conization and a simple traquelectomy during the postpartum period, until negative margins were achieved. Upon reviewing the literature from 1965 to 2020, 23 other cases were found. CONCLUSION: Surgical management of cervical AIS during pregnancy is a safe procedure. Subsequent conservative surgeries imply a real challenge to preserve fertility.

Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for second-trimester pregnancy termination: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The development of safe and effective techniques for second-trimester abortion (associated or not with fetal death) has become a major clinical challenge. AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for mid-trimester pregnancy termination. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials that compared sublingual and vaginal routes. Primary outcome measures were complete abortion rate at 24 and 48 h and induction-abortion interval, and the secondary outcome measures were side effects and patients' preference for the route. Pooled risk ratios were calculated for categorical variables, and continuous variables were compared by means of weighted mean differences. RESULTS: Both routes' efficacy was similar following 24 h of treatment (pooled RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93-1.7). Successful induction percentage after 24 h was significantly higher in nulliparous women with vaginal misoprostol (pooled RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.71-0.87). The efficacy after 48 h was significantly greater with vaginal misoprostol in the general population (pooled RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.93-0.99) and in nulliparous women (pooled RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.86-0.95). The sublingual route shortened the induction-fetal expulsion interval (WMD -4.54, 95% CI -8.03 to -1.05) and was the route preferred among women. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were observed for placental retention or for any side effect except for fever, which was more common in the vaginal group. CONCLUSIONS: Sublingual and vaginal misoprostol are safe and effective for mid-trimester pregnancy termination. The differences obtained between both routes probably do not have clinical consequences.