Evaluation of long-term efficacy and safety of dienogest in patients with chronic cyclic pelvic pain associated with endometriosis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and long-term safety (up to 108 months) of treatment with Dienogest in patients with endometriosis.

METHODS

Patients with chronic pelvic pain endometriosis-related were enrolled in this observational study from June 2012 to July 2021. The patients enrolled took Dienogest 2 mg as a single daily administration. Group B of long-term therapy patients (over 15 months) were compared with group A of short-term therapy patients (0-15 months). The effects of the drug on pain variation were assessed using the VAS scale and endometriomas dimensions through ultrasonographic evaluation. Furthermore, has been valuated the appearance of side effects and the effect of the drug on bone metabolism by performing MOC every 24 months in group B.

RESULTS

157 patients were enrolled. The mean size of the major endometrioma progressively decreased from 33.2 mm (29.4-36.9) at T0 to 7 mm (0-15.8) after 108 months of treatment. We found a significant improvement in dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia and non-cyclic pelvic pain. As for the side effects, both groups complained menstrual alterations present in 22.9%. In 27.6% of group B, osteopenia was found. Group B had a higher percentage statistically significant of side effects such as headaches, weight gain and libido reduction compared to group A. 2 CONCLUSION: Long-term therapy with Dienogest has proven effective in controlling the symptoms of the disease and reducing the size of endometriomas, with an increase in the positive effects related to the duration of the intake and in the absence of serious adverse events. Study approved by the "Palermo 2" Ethics Committee on July 2, 2012 No. 16.

Impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcome after natural conception: a multicenter Italian study

Purpose

To evaluate obstetric outcome in women with endometriosis who conceive naturally and receive standard obstetric care in Italy.

Methods

Cases were consecutive women with endometriosis managed in eleven Italian referral centers. Controls were women in whom endometriosis was excluded. All women filled in a questionnaire addressing previous natural pregnancies. Marginal logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate the impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcome. A post hoc analysis was performed within the endometriosis group comparing women with severe adenomyosis versus women with absent or mild adenomyosis.

Results

Three hundred and fifty-five pregnancies in endometriosis group and 741 pregnancies in control group were included. Women with endometriosis had a higher risk of preterm delivery < 34 weeks (6.4% vs 2.8%, OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.22–4.82), preterm delivery < 37 weeks (17.8% vs 9.7%, OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.23–3.19), and neonatal admission to Intensive Care Unit (14.1% vs 7.0%, OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23–3.36). At post hoc analysis, women with endometriosis and severe adenomyosis had an increased risk of placenta previa (23.1% vs 1.8%, OR 16.68, 95% CI 3.49–79.71), cesarean delivery (84.6% vs 38.9%, OR 8.03, 95% CI 1.69–38.25) and preterm delivery < 34 weeks (23.1% vs 5.7%, OR 5.52, 95% CI 1.38–22.09).

Conclusion

Women with endometriosis who conceive naturally have increased risk of preterm delivery and neonatal admission to intensive care unit. When severe adenomyosis is coexistent with endometriosis, women may be at increased risk of placenta previa and cesarean delivery.

Trial registration

Clinical trial registration number: NCT03354793.

Scar endometriosis: not a rare cause for a painful scar

Conclusion

High suspicion of scar endometriosis are painful no-dule in the abdominal scar. Wide surgical excision is the treatment of choice.

Introduction

Endometriosis has been described as the presence of endometrial tissue outside uterine cavity. Scar endometriosis (SE) is a rare disease reported in 0.03-1.08% of women following gynaecologic surgery. In our retrospective observational cohort study we studied anamnesis, symptoms, surgical procedures and outcomes linked to scar endometriosis in our medical experience from 2004 to 2018.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of 46 patients with a histopathological diagnosis of SE. All patients had a history of at least one previous caesarean section (n=46, 100%). Forty-two patients (91,3%) complained gradually growing nodular abdominal mass near or adjacent to caesarean incision scar, while only 4 patients (8,6%) complained aspecific abdominal pain. Ultrasound scan was performed in all patients (n=46, 100%) and mean size of the nodules at US was 26,8 ± 13,8 mm.

Results

All patients underwent surgery. Seven patients (15,2%) needed mesh implantation, while 39 patients (84,8%) underwent local resection with reconstruction of muscle fascia. Mean follow-up was 31,6 ± 14 months and no patients reported local recurrence of disease.

When more is not better: 10 'don'ts' in endometriosis management. An ETIC * position statement

A network of endometriosis experts from 16 Italian academic departments and teaching hospitals distributed all over the country made a critical appraisal of the available evidence and definition of 10 suggestions regarding measures to be de-implemented. Strong suggestions were made only when high-quality evidence was available. The aim was to select 10 low-value medical interventions, characterized by an unfavorable balance between potential benefits, potential harms, and costs, which should be discouraged in women with endometriosis. The following suggestions were agreed by all experts: do not suggest laparoscopy to detect and treat superficial peritoneal endometriosis in infertile women without pelvic pain symptoms; do not recommend controlled ovarian stimulation and IUI in infertile women with endometriosis at any stage; do not remove small ovarian endometriomas (diameter <4 cm) with the sole objective of improving the likelihood of conception in infertile patients scheduled for IVF; do not remove uncomplicated deep endometriotic lesions in asymptomatic women, and also in symptomatic women not seeking conception when medical treatment is effective and well tolerated; do not systematically request second-level diagnostic investigations in women with known or suspected non-subocclusive colorectal endometriosis or with symptoms responding to medical treatment; do not recommend repeated follow-up serum CA-125 (or other currently available biomarkers) measurements in women successfully using medical treatments for uncomplicated endometriosis in the absence of suspicious ovarian cysts; do not leave women undergoing surgery for ovarian endometriomas and not seeking immediate conception without post-operative long-term treatment with estrogen-progestins or progestins; do not perform laparoscopy in adolescent women (<20 years) with moderate-severe dysmenorrhea and clinically suspected early endometriosis without prior attempting to relieve symptoms with estrogen-progestins or progestins; do not prescribe drugs that cannot be used for prolonged periods of time because of safety or cost issues as first-line medical treatment, unless estrogen-progestins or progestins have been proven ineffective, not tolerated, or contraindicated; do not use robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis outside research settings. Our proposal is to better address medical and surgical approaches to endometriosis de-implementing low-value interventions, with the aim to prevent unnecessary morbidity, limit psychological distress, and reduce the burden of treatment avoiding medical overuse and allowing a more equitable distribution of healthcare resources.

How to Manage Bowel Endometriosis: The ETIC Approach

A panel of experts in the field of endometriosis expressed their opinions on management options in a 35-year-old patient desiring pregnancy with a history of previous surgery for endometrioma and bowel obstruction symptoms. Many questions that this paradigmatic patient may pose to the clinician are addressed, and various clinical scenarios are discussed. A decision algorithm derived from this discussion is proposed as well.

Omental pregnancy: case report and review of literature

Pregnancy, the implantation of a fertilized ovum outside the endometrial cavity, occurs in 1.5%-2% of pregnancies. It is one of the major causes (about 6%) of maternal death during the first trimester of pregnancy. The remaining 5% implant in the ovary, peritoneal cavity, within the cervix, and the omental pregnancy is the least common form of abdominal pregnancies. A review of the literature on Medline for the period 1958-2012 reported only 16 cases of omental pregnancy. Here we report a case of primary omental pregnancy in a nulliparous woman. A 24 year-old woman gravid 1, para 0, with lower abdominal pain. Her last menstrual period occurred 8 weeks before the visit. The physical examination revealed abdominal tenderness in the lower quadrants, she was not bleeding. Transvaginal ultrasound showed: a free anechoic/hypoechoic area of 30 x 57 mm in the pouch of Douglas and the endometrium was homogeneus with a thickness of 12 mm and no evidence of gestational sac in the uterine cavity. Laboratory data revealed a normal cell blood count and beta hcg levels of 8047 IU / L. Because of continuing abdominal pain and a diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy a diagnostic laparoscopy was performed, which showed hemoperitoneum. Further inspection of abdominal cavity revealed a bloody lesion that was tenaciously adherent to the omentum, using non traumatic laparoscopic forceps and bipolar scissors we carefully removed a friable mass of about 30 mm from the omental attachments. Histological examination showed the presence of blood clot material mixed with trophoblastic tissue. Ultrasound evaluation and and hCG assessment are important to determine the extrauterine location of the ectopic pregnancy but the early diagnosis of abdominal pregnancy requires also a laparoscopic evaluation and, as our case has highlighted, thorough abdominal exploration especially in the absence of adnexal findings when ectopic pregnancy is highly suspected. Early diagnosis of omental pregnancy is difficult but essential to reduce the high mortality risk for the mother.