Methods of induction of labor in women with obesity : A secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized controlled trials

No funding was received for the original PROBAAT-I trial or this follow-up study. The original PROBAAT-II trial was funded by Fonds NutsOhra. MV received a doctoral grant for teachers from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (023.011.051). BM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548).Peer reviewe

Evaluation of treatment, prognostic factors, and survival in 198 vulvar melanoma patients: Implications for clinical practice

Objective: To identify clinicopathological characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with vulvar melanoma (VM). Materials & methods: This retrospective multicentre cohort st

Does the New FIGO 2018 Staging System Allow Better Prognostic Differentiation in Early Stage Cervical Cancer? A Dutch Nationwide Cohort Study

The FIGO 2018 staging system was introduced to allow better prognostic differentiation in cervical cancer, causing considerable stage migration and affecting treatment options. We evaluated the accuracy of the FIGO 2018 staging in predicting recurrence free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to FIGO 2009 staging in clinically early stage cervical cancer. We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study, including 2264 patients with preoperative FIGO (2009) IA1, IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer between 2007–2017. Kaplan–Meier analyses were used to assess survival outcomes. Logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for lymph node metastasis and parametrial invasion. Stage migration occurred in 48% (22% down-staged, 26% up-staged). Survival data of patients down-staged from IB to IA1/2 disease were comparable with FIGO 2009 IA1/2 and better than patients remaining stage IB1. LVSI, invasion depth and parametrial invasion were risk factors for lymph node metastases. LVSI, grade and age were associated with parametrial invasion. In conclusion, the FIGO 2018 staging system accurately reflects prognosis in early stage cervical cancer and is therefore more suitable than the FIGO 2009 staging. However subdivision in IA1 or IA2 based on presence or absence of LVSI instead of depth of invasion would have improved accuracy. For patients down-staged to IA1/2, less radical surgery seems appropriate, although LVSI and histology should be considered when determining the treatment plan

Progress of labor in women induced with misoprostol vs the Foley catheter

Research into fetal development and medicin

Induction of Labor Using a Foley Catheter or Misoprostol : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance: Induction of labor is a widely used obstetric intervention, occurring in one in four pregnancies. When the cervix is unfavorable, still many different induction methods are used. Objective: We compared Foley catheter alone to different misoprostol dosages and administration routes, and the combination of Foley catheter with misoprostol. Evidence acquisition: We reviewed the literature on the best induction method regarding their safety and effectiveness, using the outcome measures hyperstimulation, fetal distress, neonatal morbidity and mortality as well as cesarean delivery, vaginal instrumental delivery, and maternal morbidity. We searched Pubmed, Cochrane, and Web of Science from January 1, 1980 to February 12, 2016. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, comparing Foley catheter with or without misoprostol to misoprostol alone (both vaginal and oral) for induction of labor (5,015 women). Results: Most included studies were underpowered to detect differences in safety outcomes, as the majority are powered for time to delivery or cesarean delivery. Meta-analysis of these studies does not allow assessment of the safety profile of Foley catheter compared to misoprostol (any dose, any administration route) with sufficient power. For the safety outcomes of the total group of Foley catheter versus misoprostol (any dose, any administration route) (17 studies, 4,234 women) we found that Foley catheter results in less hyperstimulation compared to misoprostol (2% versus 4%; risk ratio [RR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.79) and fewer cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal heart rate, 5% vs 7%; RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95; while there were no statistically significant differences in neonatal outcomes. The total number of cesarean deliveries was 26% versus 22% (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.34). There were fewer vaginal instrumental deliveries with a Foley catheter compared to misoprostol (10% vs 14%; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91). Foley catheter with misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone (any dose, any administration route) (7 studies, 1,073 women) resulted in less hyperstimulation than misoprostol alone (17% vs 23%; RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97). Cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal heart rate were comparable (7% vs 9%; RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51-1.22). Neonatal outcomes were infrequently reported. The total number of cesarean deliveries was 34% versus 34% (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.86-1.19). Conclusion: In women with an unripe cervix at term, Foley catheter seems to have a better safety profile than misoprostol (any dose, any administration route) for induction of labor. Larger studies are needed to investigate the safety profile of a Foley catheter compared to separate dosing and administration regimens of misoprostol

Induction of Labor Using a Foley Catheter or Misoprostol : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance: Induction of labor is a widely used obstetric intervention, occurring in one in four pregnancies. When the cervix is unfavorable, still many different induction methods are used. Objective: We compared Foley catheter alone to different misoprostol dosages and administration routes, and the combination of Foley catheter with misoprostol. Evidence acquisition: We reviewed the literature on the best induction method regarding their safety and effectiveness, using the outcome measures hyperstimulation, fetal distress, neonatal morbidity and mortality as well as cesarean delivery, vaginal instrumental delivery, and maternal morbidity. We searched Pubmed, Cochrane, and Web of Science from January 1, 1980 to February 12, 2016. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, comparing Foley catheter with or without misoprostol to misoprostol alone (both vaginal and oral) for induction of labor (5,015 women). Results: Most included studies were underpowered to detect differences in safety outcomes, as the majority are powered for time to delivery or cesarean delivery. Meta-analysis of these studies does not allow assessment of the safety profile of Foley catheter compared to misoprostol (any dose, any administration route) with sufficient power. For the safety outcomes of the total group of Foley catheter versus misoprostol (any dose, any administration route) (17 studies, 4,234 women) we found that Foley catheter results in less hyperstimulation compared to misoprostol (2% versus 4%; risk ratio [RR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.79) and fewer cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal heart rate, 5% vs 7%; RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95; while there were no statistically significant differences in neonatal outcomes. The total number of cesarean deliveries was 26% versus 22% (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.34). There were fewer vaginal instrumental deliveries with a Foley catheter compared to misoprostol (10% vs 14%; RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91). Foley catheter with misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone (any dose, any administration route) (7 studies, 1,073 women) resulted in less hyperstimulation than misoprostol alone (17% vs 23%; RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97). Cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal heart rate were comparable (7% vs 9%; RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51-1.22). Neonatal outcomes were infrequently reported. The total number of cesarean deliveries was 34% versus 34% (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.86-1.19). Conclusion: In women with an unripe cervix at term, Foley catheter seems to have a better safety profile than misoprostol (any dose, any administration route) for induction of labor. Larger studies are needed to investigate the safety profile of a Foley catheter compared to separate dosing and administration regimens of misoprostol

Does the New FIGO 2018 Staging System Allow Better Prognostic Differentiation in Early Stage Cervical Cancer?: A Dutch Nationwide Cohort Study

The FIGO 2018 staging system was introduced to allow better prognostic differentiation in cervical cancer, causing considerable stage migration and affecting treatment options. We evaluated the accuracy of the FIGO 2018 staging in predicting recurrence free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to FIGO 2009 staging in clinically early stage cervical cancer. We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study, including 2264 patients with preoperative FIGO (2009) IA1, IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer between 2007-2017. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to assess survival outcomes. Logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for lymph node metastasis and parametrial invasion. Stage migration occurred in 48% (22% down-staged, 26% up-staged). Survival data of patients down-staged from IB to IA1/2 disease were comparable with FIGO 2009 IA1/2 and better than patients remaining stage IB1. LVSI, invasion depth and parametrial invasion were risk factors for lymph node metastases. LVSI, grade and age were associated with parametrial invasion. In conclusion, the FIGO 2018 staging system accurately reflects prognosis in early stage cervical cancer and is therefore more suitable than the FIGO 2009 staging. However subdivision in IA1 or IA2 based on presence or absence of LVSI instead of depth of invasion would have improved accuracy. For patients down-staged to IA1/2, less radical surgery seems appropriate, although LVSI and histology should be considered when determining the treatment plan

Does the New FIGO 2018 Staging System Allow Better Prognostic Differentiation in Early Stage Cervical Cancer?:A Dutch Nationwide Cohort Study

SIMPLE SUMMARY: The introduction of a revised staging system (FIGO 2018 staging system) for cervical cancer has led to a significant change in stage allocation for patients with early stage disease. It remains unclear how this change should be translated into treatment options, including less extensive surgery. With this Dutch national study we evaluated whether the revised staging system resulted in a more accurate prediction of overall and recurrence free survival compared to the previous FIGO 2009 staging system. In addition, we assessed other factors which may help the paradigm of treatment. We concluded that the revised FIGO 2018 staging system gives a more precise indication of survival outcomes of women with early stage cervical cancer. In addition, we believe that aside from stage, tumor characteristics, such as LVSI, and depth of invasion should be considered when offering patients less radical or less extensive treatment. ABSTRACT: The FIGO 2018 staging system was introduced to allow better prognostic differentiation in cervical cancer, causing considerable stage migration and affecting treatment options. We evaluated the accuracy of the FIGO 2018 staging in predicting recurrence free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to FIGO 2009 staging in clinically early stage cervical cancer. We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study, including 2264 patients with preoperative FIGO (2009) IA1, IA2 and IB1 cervical cancer between 2007–2017. Kaplan–Meier analyses were used to assess survival outcomes. Logistic regression was used to assess risk factors for lymph node metastasis and parametrial invasion. Stage migration occurred in 48% (22% down-staged, 26% up-staged). Survival data of patients down-staged from IB to IA1/2 disease were comparable with FIGO 2009 IA1/2 and better than patients remaining stage IB1. LVSI, invasion depth and parametrial invasion were risk factors for lymph node metastases. LVSI, grade and age were associated with parametrial invasion. In conclusion, the FIGO 2018 staging system accurately reflects prognosis in early stage cervical cancer and is therefore more suitable than the FIGO 2009 staging. However subdivision in IA1 or IA2 based on presence or absence of LVSI instead of depth of invasion would have improved accuracy. For patients down-staged to IA1/2, less radical surgery seems appropriate, although LVSI and histology should be considered when determining the treatment plan

Methods of induction of labor in women with obesity: A secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized controlled trials

Introduction: Obesity is an increasing public health concern worldwide and can lead to more complications in pregnancy and childbirth. Women with obesity more often require induction of labor for various indications. The aim of this study is to assess which method of induction of labor is safest and most effective in women with obesity. Material and methods: This is a secondary analysis of two randomized controlled trials about induction of labor. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavorable cervix, intact membranes and without a previous cesarean section were randomly allocated to cervical priming with a Foley catheter or vaginal prostaglandin‐E2‐gel (PROBAAT‐I) or a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol (PROBAAT‐II). The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies were identical. Induction methods were compared in women with obesity (body mass index ≥30.0). Main outcomes were cesarean section and postpartum hemorrhage (blood loss >1000 mL). Results: A total of 2664 women, were included in the trials, 517 of whom were obese: 254 women with obesity received a Foley catheter, 176 oral misoprostol and 87 prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). A cesarean section was performed in 29.1% of women allocated to Foley vs 22.2% in the misoprostol and 23.0% in the PGE2 groups. Comparisons between groups revealed no statistically significant differences: the relative risk [RR] was 1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94–1.84) in the Foley vs misoprostol group and 1.27 (95% CI 0.83–1.95) in the Foley vs PGE2 group. The rates of postpartum hemorrhage were comparable (10.6%, 11.4% and 6.9%, respectively; P = 0.512). In women with obesity, more often a switch to another method occurred in the Foley group, (20.1% vs 6.3% in misoprostol vs 1.1% in the PGE2 group; P < 0.001). The risk of a failed Foley placement was higher in women with obesity than in women without obesity (8.3% vs 3.2%; adjusted odds ratio 3.12, 95% CI 1.65–5.90). Conclusions: In women with obesity we found a nonsignificant trend towards an increased rate of cesarean sections in the group induced with a Foley catheter compared to oral misoprostol; however, the study lacked power for this subgroup analysis. The finding of a higher risk of failed placement of a Foley catheter in women with obesity can be used in shared decision making