A prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracies of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging of endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracies of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for deep (≥50%) myometrial invasion (DMI) and cervical stromal invasion (CSI) in women with endometrial cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective study at a gynecology clinic for women with postmenopausal bleeding. Between October 2015-October 2018, consecutive women with suspected endometrial cancer based on ultrasound subjective pattern recognition were simultaneously assessed for DMI and CSI on ultrasound. Subsequently, they also underwent preoperative MRI. We compared the diagnostic accuracies of ultrasound and MRI in predicting DMI and CSI with the final histology as the gold standard. RESULTS: We included 51 women. The prevalence of DMI and CSI were 22/51 (43%) and 7/51 (14%), respectively. The majority of malignancies were of endometrioid histological subtype (38/51, 75%) and FIGO stage 1 or 2 (40/51, 78%). Ultrasound diagnosed more cases of DMI compared to MRI (19/22 vs. 17/22), however, the difference was not statistically significant. The sensitivities and specificities of ultrasound and MRI for DMI were 86% vs. 77% and 66% vs. 76%, respectively. For CSI, ultrasound and MRI correctly diagnosed the same number of cases (5/7, 71%); their respective false-positive rates were low, 0/44 (0%) and 1/44 (2%). Ultrasound and MRI had a moderate agreement for DMI (ƙ=0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.26-0.73), whereas the agreement for CSI was substantial (ƙ=0.69; 95% CI=0.36-1.00). CONCLUSION: Endometrial cancer can be simultaneously diagnosed and staged at women's initial ultrasound assessment. The accuracies of ultrasound for DMI and CSI are comparable to MRI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN24363390.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: the MifeMiso RCT.

TRIAL DESIGN: A randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study with health economic and nested qualitative studies to determine if mifepristone (Mifegyne®, Exelgyn, Paris, France) plus misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone for the resolution of missed miscarriage. METHODS: Women diagnosed with missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy were randomly assigned (1 : 1 ratio) to receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone or matched placebo, followed by 800 µg of misoprostol 2 days later. A web-based randomisation system allocated the women to the two groups, with minimisation for age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, amount of bleeding and randomising centre. The primary outcome was failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days after randomisation. The prespecified key secondary outcome was requirement for surgery to resolve the miscarriage. A within-trial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted. Women who completed the trial protocol were purposively approached to take part in an interview to explore their satisfaction with and the acceptability of medical management of missed miscarriage. RESULTS: A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 out of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 out of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.98; p = 0.04). Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.94; p = 0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview. Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The use of mifepristone and misoprostol showed an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, with a cost saving of £182 (95% confidence interval £26 to £338). Therefore, the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone. LIMITATIONS: The results from this trial are not generalisable to women diagnosed with incomplete miscarriage and the study does not allow for a comparison with expectant or surgical management of miscarriage. FUTURE WORK: Future work should use existing data to assess and rank the relative clinical effectiveness and safety profiles for all methods of management of miscarriage. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again. The mifepristone and misoprostol intervention was shown to be cost-effective in comparison to misoprostol alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17405024. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy, affecting approximately one in four women. Sometimes, medical treatment (i.e. tablets) may be offered to start or speed up the miscarriage process in order for the womb to empty itself. A drug called misoprostol (a tablet that makes the womb contract) is currently recommended for this treatment. However, the addition of another drug called mifepristone [a tablet that reduces pregnancy hormones (Mifegyne^®, Exelgyn, Paris, France)] might help the miscarriage to resolve more quickly. Therefore, we carried out the MifeMiso trial to test if mifepristone plus misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone in resolving miscarriage within 7 days. Women were randomly allocated by a computer to receive either mifepristone or placebo, followed by misoprostol 2 days later. Neither the women nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment they received. Some women also talked to the researchers about their experiences of taking part in the study. In total, 711 women were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol or placebo plus misoprostol. Overall, 83% of women who received mifepristone plus misoprostol had miscarriage resolution within 7 days, compared with 76% of the women who received a placebo plus misoprostol. Surgery was required less often in women who received mifepristone plus misoprostol: 17% of women who received it required surgery, compared with 25% of women who received the placebo. Treatment with mifepristone did not appear to have any negative effects. Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more cost-effective than misoprostol alone, with an average saving of £182 per woman. Having taken part in the study, most women would choose medical management again and would recommend it to someone they knew who was experiencing a miscarriage.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS: MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 µg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ≥35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Natural History of Uterine Fibroids: A Radiological Perspective.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to update our understanding of the radiological life cycle of fibroids, so that we may better counsel patients making difficult treatment decisions. Evidence for both pregnant and non-pregnant women have been considered separately. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent findings have shown that fibroids can undergo both growth and regression in non-gravid uterus. In pregnant women, fibroid growth is non-linear fashion, with the greatest growth occurring in the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. Growth in the later trimesters was significantly slower. SUMMARY: Fibroid growth, both in the intra- and inter-gravid states, is variable and can range from 18 to 120% per year. In the inter-gravid state, fibroids can grow or undergo spontaneous regression. Factors that can predict fibroid growth include the starting volume of fibroid, type of fibroid and age of patient. In the gravid state, fibroids appears to grow in a non-linear pattern, with the most rapid growth occurring in the first trimester. Factors affecting fibroid growth in pregnancy include the size of fibroids and number of fibroids.

Comparison of two protocols for the management of asymptomatic postmenopausal women with adnexal tumours - a randomised controlled trial of RMI/RCOG vs Simple Rules.

BACKGROUND: Adnexal tumours are frequently diagnosed in asymptomatic postmenopausal women due to more liberal use of modern high-resolution imaging. This study's objective was to determine if there would be a difference in the intervention rates when using the Simple Rules Management Protocol (SRMP) as compared to the Risk of Malignancy Index in the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guideline (RMI/RCOG). METHODS: This was a prospective randomised controlled trial with the participants and the researchers non-blinded, and the surgeons and pathologists blinded. We recruited pain-free postmenopausal women who were diagnosed with an adnexal tumour on ultrasound scan. Women were randomised to either of the two protocols, which then determined if they were offered conservative or surgical management. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. The primary outcome measure was rate of surgical interventions for ovarian cysts up to 12 months after randomisation. The secondary outcome measures were the number of staging surgical procedures, surgical complications and number of delayed diagnoses of ovarian cancer. RESULTS: A total of 148 women were randomised over 39 months with 73 in the RMI/RCOG arm and 75 in the SRMP arm with outcome data for 136 at 12 months. The two groups were balanced in terms of age, length of time since menopause and use of hormone replacement therapy. There were 18 out of 68 (28.1%) women in the RMI/RCOG arm who had surgery vs 7 out of 68 (10.3%) women in the SRMP arm (P=0.015, χ2-test). The difference in these proportions was 16.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.4-28.9%) and the relative risk was 2.57 (95% CI: 1.15-5.76). There were no significant differences in the number of staging surgical procedures and the surgical complications between the two groups and there were no delayed diagnoses of ovarian cancer at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical intervention rates in asymptomatic postmenopausal women with an ultrasound diagnosis of adnexal tumours are significantly lower when the novel SRMP protocol is used for triaging compared to the standard RMI/RCOG protocol without an increase in delayed malignant diagnoses.

A prospective validation of the IOTA logistic regression models (LR1 and LR2) in comparison to subjective pattern recognition for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) logistic regression models (LR1 and LR2) and that of subjective pattern recognition (PR) for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This was a prospective single-center study in a general gynecology unit of a tertiary hospital during 33 months. There were 292 consecutive women who underwent surgery after an ultrasound diagnosis of an adnexal tumor. All examinations were by a single level 2 ultrasound operator, according to the IOTA guidelines. The malignancy likelihood was calculated using the IOTA LR1 and LR2. The women were then examined separately by an expert operator using subjective PR. These were compared to operative findings and histology. The sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and accuracy of the 3 methods were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The AUCs for LR1 and LR2 were 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92-0.97] and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96), respectively. Subjective PR gave a positive likelihood ratio (LR+ve) of 13.9 (95% CI, 7.84-24.6) and a LR-ve of 0.049 (95% CI, 0.022-0.107). The corresponding LR+ve and LR-ve for LR1 were 3.33 (95% CI, 2.85-3.55) and 0.03 (95% CI, 0.01-0.10), and for LR2 were 3.58 (95% CI, 2.77-4.63) and 0.052 (95% CI, 0.022-0.123). The accuracy of PR was 0.942 (95% CI, 0.908-0.966), which was significantly higher when compared with 0.829 (95% CI, 0.781-0.870) for LR1 and 0.836 (95% CI, 0.788-0.872) for LR2 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The AUC of the IOTA LR1 and LR2 were similar in nonexpert's hands when compared to the original and validation IOTA studies. The PR method was the more accurate test to diagnose ovarian cancer than either of the IOTA models.