[Hypovolemic shock due to ovarian bleeding]. / Hypovolemische shock door ovariële bloeding.

BACKGROUND: Ovulation may lead to abdominal pain. It is well-known that ovulation can cause intra-abdominal bleeding. However, literature on hypovolemic shock due to an ovarian bleeding is scarce. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 30-year-old woman visited the emergency room because of acute pain of the lower abdomen. Her skin was pale, her vital signs were normal and a pregnancy test was negative. At presentation, her blood pressure decreased to 87/50 mmHg. Therefore, intra-abdominal bleeding was suspected and the gynecologist was consulted. On ultrasound, intraperitoneal fluid was seen, so we proceeded to emergency laparoscopy. During surgery, we found a bleeding corpus luteum (corpus rubrum) leading to 2.5 L of free intra-abdominal blood. The bleeding was stopped intraoperatively. CONCLUSION: A bleeding corpus luteum can lead to hypovolemic shock. Ovarian bleeding should be considered in case of shock combined with lower abdominal pain, ultrasound should be performed promptly and the gynecologist has to be consulted.

The duration of the third stage in relation to postpartum hemorrhage.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we describe the distribution of placenta delivery and the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage in both spontaneous placental delivery and manual removal of the placenta. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of 7603 singleton vaginal deliveries of a gestational age over 32 weeks, registered between September 2011 and 2016. We calculated the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (≥1000 mL blood loss) per 10-minute duration of the third stage. The odds ratio for developing postpartum hemorrhage was assessed, adjusted for risk factors. The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage was compared between women that did and did not receive manual removal of placenta. RESULTS: The median duration of the third stage was 10 minutes (interquartile range 7-16 minutes). The median amount of blood loss was 300 mL (200-400 mL). The overall incidence of postpartum hemorrhage was 8.5%. With every additional 10 minutes of third-stage duration, the risk of developing postpartum hemorrhage significantly increased. In a third stage longer than 60 minutes, the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage was 21.2% without manual removal of the placenta and 70.3% with manual removal. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage increases significantly from 10 to 19 minutes into the third stage. Women with the removal of the placenta had a significantly higher percentage of postpartum hemorrhage. The optimal timing for manual removal of the placenta should be investigated in a carefully designed randomized controlled trial to examine whether earlier manual removal of placenta lowers the incidence and limits the severity of postpartum hemorrhage.

Complementarity between miRNA expression analysis and DNA methylation analysis in hrHPV-positive cervical scrapes for the detection of cervical disease.

Cervical screening by high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing requires additional risk stratification (triage), as most infections are transient and only a subset of hrHPV-positive women harbours clinically relevant disease. Molecular triage markers such as microRNAs (miRNAs) and DNA methylation markers are particularly promising, as they can be objectively tested directly on hrHPV-positive scrapes and cervicovaginal self-samples. Here, we evaluated the marker potential of 10 candidate miRNAs in 209 hrHPV-positive scrapes of women with underlying precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 2-3 (CIN2-3)), cancer, or without disease (CIN0/1). A predictive miRNA classifier for CIN3 detection was built using logistic regression, which was compared to and combined with DNA methylation marker FAM19A4. Markers were correlated to histology parameters and hrHPV genotype. A miRNA classifier consisting of miR-149, miR-20a, and miR-93 achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.834 for CIN3 detection, which was not significantly different to that of FAM19A4 methylation (AUC: 0.862, p = 0.591). Combining miRNA and methylation analysis demonstrated complementarity between both marker types (AUC: 0.939). While the miRNA classifier seemed more predictive for CIN2, FAM19A4 methylation was particularly high in HPV16-positive and histologically advanced CIN3, i.e. CIN3 with high lesion volume. The miRNA classifier, FAM19A4 methylation, and the miRNA/methylation combination were highest in cancer-associated scrapes. In conclusion, a panel of three miRNAs is discriminatory for CIN3 in hrHPV-positive scrapes and can complement DNA methylation analysis for the efficient detection of cervical disease. Combined analysis of the two marker types warrants further evaluation as triage strategy in hrHPV-based screening.

Management of high-risk HPV-positive women for detection of cervical (pre)cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Primary HPV-testing has been shown to provide a superior detection of women at risk of cervical (pre)cancer compared to cytology-based screening. However, as most high-risk HPV infections are harmless, additional triage testing of HPV-positive women is necessary to identify those with cervical (pre)cancer. In this paper, we compare the performance, advantages and limitations of clinically relevant available triage strategies for HPV-positive women. AREAS COVERED: Many different colposcopy triage strategies, comprising both microscopy-based and molecular (virus/host-related) markers, have been suggested: Pap cytology, p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping, viral DNA methylation and host cell DNA methylation. Literature search was limited to triage strategies that have achieved at least phase 2 of the five-phase framework for biomarker development and studies including large cohorts (≥100 hrHPV-positive women). Triage markers were stratified by sample type (cervical scrape, self-collected sample) and by study population (screening, non-attendee, referral). Expert commentary: At present, repeat Pap cytology and Pap cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping are the only triage strategies that have been robustly shown to be ready for implementation. Other strategies such as p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology and host cell DNA methylation analysis, with or without additional HPV16/18 genotyping, are attractive options for the near future.

FAM19A4 methylation analysis in self-samples compared with cervical scrapes for detecting cervical (pre)cancer in HPV-positive women.

BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-positive women require triage to identify those with cervical high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer (⩾CIN3 (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3)). FAM19A4 methylation analysis, which detects advanced CIN and cancer, is applicable to different sample types. However, studies comparing the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis in hrHPV-positive self-samples and paired physician-taken scrapes are lacking. METHODS: We compared the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis (and/or HPV16/18 genotyping) in self-samples and paired physician-taken scrapes for ⩾CIN3 detection in hrHPV-positive women (n=450,18-66 years). RESULTS: Overall FAM19A4 methylation levels between sample types were significantly correlated, with strongest correlation in women with ⩾CIN3 (Spearman's ρ 0.697, P<0.001). The performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis and/or HPV16/18 genotyping did not differ significantly between sample types. In women ⩾30 years, ⩾CIN3 sensitivity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was 78.4% in self-samples and 88.2% in scrapes (ratio 0.89; CI: 0.75-1.05). In women <30 years, ⩾CIN3 sensitivities were 37.5% and 45.8%, respectively (ratio 0.82; CI: 0.55-1.21). In both groups, ⩾CIN3 specificity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was significantly higher in self-samples compared with scrapes. CONCLUSIONS: FAM19A4 methylation analysis in hrHPV-positive self-samples had a slightly lower sensitivity and a higher specificity for ⩾CIN3 compared with paired physician-taken scrapes. With a similarly good clinical performance in both sample types, combined FAM19A4 methylation analysis and HPV16/18 genotyping provides a feasible triage strategy for hrHPV-positive women, with direct applicability on self-samples.

p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for detecting cervical (pre)cancer in a HPV-positive gynecologic outpatient population.

Women who test positive for a high-risk type of the human papillomavirus (HPV) require triage testing to identify those women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (≥CIN3). Although Pap cytology is considered an attractive triage test, its applicability is hampered by its subjective nature. This study prospectively compared the clinical performance of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology to that of Pap cytology, with or without HPV16/18 genotyping, in high-risk HPV-positive women visiting gynecologic outpatient clinics (n=446 and age 18-66 years). From all women, cervical scrapes (for Pap cytology, HPV16/18 genotyping, and p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology) and colposcopy-directed biopsies were obtained. The sensitivity of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for ≥CIN3 (93.8%) did neither differ significantly from that of Pap cytology (87.7%; ratio 1.07 and 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.18) nor from that of Pap cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping (95.1%; ratio 0.99 and 95% CI: 0.91-1.07). However, the specificity of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for ≥CIN3 (51.2%) was significantly higher than that of Pap cytology (44.9%; ratio 1.14 and 95% CI: 1.01-1.29) and Pap cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping (25.8%; ratio 1.99 and 95% CI: 1.68-2.35). After exclusion of women who had been referred because of abnormal Pap cytology, the specificity of p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for ≥CIN3 (56.7%) remained the same, whereas that of Pap cytology (60.3%) increased substantially, resulting in a similar specificity of both assays (ratio 0.94 and 95% CI: 0.83-1.07) in this sub-cohort. In summary, p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology has a good clinical performance and is an interesting objective microscopy-based triage tool for high-risk HPV-positive women.

Presence of human papillomavirus in semen in relation to semen quality.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the presence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in semen associated with impairment of semen quality? SUMMARY ANSWER: In a large cohort of males seeking fertility evaluation, no associations were observed between seminal HPV presence and semen parameters. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HPV is commonly detected in semen samples. Whether the presence of HPV is related to impairment of semen quality, remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This cross-sectional study included a cohort of 430 males. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Male partners in couples seeking fertility evaluation provided one semen sample per person. Semen samples were tested for HPV-DNA using GP5+/6+-PCR. Sperm concentration was counted and motility was assessed in a Makler counting chamber at a magnification of ×200. The presence of antisperm antibodies was assessed by a mixed agglutination reaction (MAR)-test. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall HPV was detected in 14.9% (64/430) of semen samples, including 2.1% (9/430) that contained both high-risk (hr) HPV and low-risk (lr) HPV types, 8.8% (38/430) with exclusively hrHPV types and 4.0% (17/430) with exclusively lrHPV types. The presence of HPV in semen was not associated with the age of the participants, seminal pH, semen volume, total sperm count, sperm concentration, progressive motility or the presence of antisperm antibodies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study did not observe an association between HPV presence in semen and impairment of semen quality. However, we cannot exclude an effect of seminal HPV on early embryo development and clinical reproductive outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: As HPV is frequently present in semen, screening of donor semen for HPV should be considered to prevent iatrogenic cervical HPV infections in the recipient. However our findings do not support standardized HPV testing of semen in the diagnostic work-up of subfertile couples. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was sponsored by an unrestricted grant of Stichting Researchfonds Pathology Amsterdam, the Netherlands. P.J.F.S. has been on the speakers bureau of Roche, Gen-Probe, Abbott, Qiagen and Seegene and has been a consultant for Crucell B.V. J.B. has been on the speakers bureau of Qiagen and has been a consultant for Roche, DDL Diagnostic Laboratory, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. D.A.M.H. has been member of the scientific advisory boards of Amgen and Pfizer, and has been on the speakers bureau of Hologic/Gen-Probe. C.J.L.M.M. has been on the speakers bureau of GlaxoSmithKline, Qiagen, Merck, Roche, Menarini and Seegene, has served occasionally on the scientific advisory board of GlaxoSmithKline, Qiagen, Merck, Roche and Genticel, and has occasionally been a consultant for Qiagen. Formerly, C.J.L.M.M. was a minority shareholder of Delphi Biosciences, which bankrupted in 2014. C.J.L.M.M. is a minority shareholder of Diassay B.V. P.J.F.S., D.A.M.H. and C.J.L.M.M. have minority stake in Self-Screen B.V., a spin-off company of VU University Medical Center. R.L., M.G.D., P.G.A.H., D.T.M.P., and I.H. do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Comparing the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis, cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping for the detection of cervical (pre)cancer in high-risk HPV-positive women of a gynecologic outpatient population (COMETH study).

Recently, DNA methylation analysis of FAM19A4 in cervical scrapes has been shown to adequately detect high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer (≥ CIN3) in high-risk HPV (hrHPV)-positive women. Here, we compared the clinical performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis to cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping, separately and in combination, for ≥ CIN3 detection in hrHPV-positive women participating in a prospective observational multi-center cohort study. The study population comprised hrHPV-positive women aged 18-66 years, visiting a gynecological outpatient clinic. From these women, cervical scrapes and colposcopy-directed biopsies (for histological confirmation) were obtained. Cervical scrapes were analyzed for FAM19A4 gene promoter methylation, cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping. Methylation analysis was performed by quantitative methylation-specific PCR (qMSP). Sensitivities and specificities for ≥ CIN3 were compared between tests. Stratified analyses were performed for variables that potentially influence marker performance. Of all 508 hrHPV-positive women, the sensitivities for ≥ CIN3 of cytology, FAM19A4 methylation analysis, and cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping were 85.6, 75.6 and 92.2%, respectively, with corresponding specificities of 49.8, 71.1 and 29.4%, respectively. Both sensitivity and specificity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis were associated with age (p ≤ 0.001 each). In women ≥ 30 years (n = 287), ≥ CIN3 sensitivity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was 88.3% (95%CI: 80.2-96.5) which was noninferior to that of cytology [85.5% (95%CI: 76.0-94.0)], at a significantly higher specificity [62.1% (95%CI: 55.8-68.4) compared to 47.6% (95%CI: 41.1-54.1)]. In conclusion, among hrHPV-positive women from an outpatient population aged ≥ 30 years, methylation analysis of FAM19A4 is an attractive marker for the identification of women with ≥ CIN3.

Presence of human papillomavirus in semen of healthy men is firmly associated with HPV infections of the penile epithelium.

OBJECTIVE: To study the source of human papillomavirus (HPV) in semen. DESIGN: Observational study (CCMO-NL3248800010). SETTING: Academic hospital-based laboratory. PATIENT(S): Healthy male volunteers (n = 213). INTERVENTION(S): One penile scrape and three semen samples were obtained per participant for HPV-DNA testing by both GP5+/6+ polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and SPF10-PCR to detect moderate/high and low viral loads, respectively; flat penile lesions (FPL) were detected by penoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): HPV-DNA presence in semen and penile scrapes, and the presence of FPL. RESULT(S): HPV-DNA at moderate/high viral loads (i.e., GP5+/6+ PCR-positive) was detected in ≥1 semen sample(s) in 27% of participants. Most men with moderate/high viral loads in the penile scrape also had moderate/high viral loads in semen (85%). Men with a HPV-negative penile scrape were very unlikely to have moderate/high viral loads in semen (3%). The presence of HPV in semen was associated with the presence of HPV in the penile scrape also on a genotype-specific level. Having FPL was a risk factor for HPV presence in semen. CONCLUSION(S): HPV-DNA presence in semen of healthy men is common and associated with HPV infections of the penile epithelium. HPV-DNA presence in semen may result from desquamation of HPV-infected penile cells.

Comparing triage algorithms using HPV DNA genotyping, HPV E7 mRNA detection and cytology in high-risk HPV DNA-positive women.

BACKGROUND: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA positive women require triage testing to identify those with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer (≥CIN2). OBJECTIVE: Comparing three triage algorithms (1) E7 mRNA testing following HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58 genotyping (E7 mRNA test), (2) HPV16/18 DNA genotyping and (3) cytology, for ≥CIN2 detection in hrHPV DNA-positive women. STUDY DESIGN: hrHPV DNA-positive women aged 18-63 years visiting gynecology outpatient clinics were included in a prospective observational cohort study. From these women a cervical scrape and colposcopy-directed biopsies were obtained. Cervical scrapes were evaluated by cytology, HPV DNA genotyping by bead-based multiplex genotyping of GP5+6+-PCR-products, and presence of HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58 E7 mRNA using nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) in DNA positive women for respective HPV types. Sensitivities and specificities for ≥CIN2 were compared between E7 mRNA test and HPV16/18 DNA genotyping in the total group (n=348), and E7 mRNA test and cytology in a subgroup of women referred for non-cervix-related gynecological complaints (n=133). RESULTS: Sensitivity for ≥CIN2 of the E7 mRNA test was slightly higher than that of HPV16/18 DNA genotyping (66.9% versus 60.9%; ratio 1.10, 95% CI: 1.0002-1.21), at similar specificity (54.8% versus 52.3%; ratio 1.05, 95% CI: 0.93-1.18). Neither sensitivity nor specificity of the E7 mRNA test differed significantly from that of cytology (sensitivity: 68.8% versus 75.0%; ratio 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.17; specificity: 59.4% versus 65.3%; ratio 0.91, 95% CI: 0.75-1.10). CONCLUSION: For detection of ≥CIN2 in hrHPV DNA-positive women, an algorithm including E7 mRNA testing following HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58 DNA genotyping performs similar to HPV16/18 DNA genotyping or cytology.

Metabolic syndrome components are associated with DNA hypomethylation.

BACKGROUND: Disturbances of DNA methylation have been associated with multiple diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer and, as some have suggested, glucometabolic disturbances. Our aim was to assess the association of the metabolic syndrome and its individual components with DNA methylation in a population-based study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a human population (n = 738) stratified by age, sex and glucose metabolism, we explored associations of the metabolic syndrome according to National Cholesterol Education Program/Adult Treatment Panel-III criteria and its individual components (fasting glucose, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, waist circumference) with global leukocyte DNA methylation. DNA methylation was measured as the methylcytosine/cytosine ratio in peripheral leukocytes using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Individuals with the metabolic syndrome had relative DNA hypomethylation compared to participants without the syndrome (ß = -0.05; p = 0.01). This association was mainly attributable to linear associations of two metabolic syndrome components with DNA methylation: fasting plasma glucose (ß = -0.02; p = 0.004) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (ß = 0.07; p = 0.004). People with type 2 diabetes or impaired glucose metabolism had DNA hypomethylation compared to normoglycemic individuals (ß = -0.05; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: DNA hypomethylation is independently associated with hyperglycemia and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, both essential components of the metabolic syndrome. The potential implications and direction of possible causality require further study.