Oral Desogestrel as Endometrial Preparation before Operative Hysteroscopy: A Systematic Review.

The pharmacologic preparation of the endometrium before hysteroscopy may be achieved with the use of various drugs. This systematic review aims to summarize the available evidence regarding the use of desogestrel for endometrial preparation before hysteroscopic procedures. A literature search for suitable articles published in English language from inception of the database until August 2019 was performed using the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. All original articles concerning desogestrel-only pretreatment before hysteroscopic surgery were considered eligible. Reviews, case reports/series, conference papers, studies including the use of combined hormonal preparation, and articles in languages other than English were excluded from the analysis. The literature search retrieved 3 studies that met all the inclusion criteria. The data demonstrated that desogestrel may be considered as a hormonal pretreatment drug before hysteroscopic procedures. The drug was distinctly effective and assessed as helpful by the operating surgeon in numerous patients who were administered the pretreatment of 75 µg daily. Oral desogestrel is a cheap, easily available, safe, and quite efficient alternative for endometrial preparation before hysteroscopic procedures.

Vilaprisan, a New Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulator in Uterine Fibroid Pharmacotherapy-Will it Really be a Breakthrough?

BACKGROUND: Vilaprisan (VPR) is a new orally available selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM), with anti-proliferative activity against uterine fibroids (UFs). It definitively causes suppression of ovulation and inhibition of proliferation of endometrial, myometrial and UF cells. PURPOSE: This review aims to summarize current knowledge on VPR from all studies, including clinical trials, conducted to date and to contextualize the potential role of VPR in future medical regimens for the treatment of UFs. METHODS: We performed a literature search in PubMed US National Library of Medicine and Google Scholar databases. Both databases were extensively searched for all original and review articles/book chapters as well as congress abstracts published in English until July 2019. The use of VPR for UF therapy was identified by using the keywords: "uterine fibroids" and "vilaprisan". RESULTS: In phase I and II clinical trials, VPR was shown to be effective in ameliorating UF-related clinical symptoms, especially abnormal or excessive uterine bleeding and in shrinking UFs. The tolerability of VPR is roughly similar to that of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and it tends to be more favorable than that of GnRH-agonists. CONCLUSION: Presently, all trials examining the utility of VPR for the treatment of UF are halted; likely, due to the recently reported cases of hepato-toxicity with UPA, in addition to non reassuring toxicology results from preclinical long-term testing on rodents, carried out in parallel with late stage testing on humans. An accurate summary of robust data related to the safety of VPR is urgently needed to draw definitive conclusions on the future clinical development of this drug for UF therapy.

An Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Treated by Extensive Bowel Resection Due to Advanced Ovarian Cancer Relative to the Effectiveness of Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) often requires bowel resections. However, the impact of bowel surgery on patient overall survival (OS) has not yet been precisely determined. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyze the OS rates in a group of AOC patients undergoing bowel resection. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone low anterior resection of the rectum (LAR) during primary or interval debulking surgery for AOC. We divided the patients into 2 groups: Group 1 included 69 patients who underwent only LAR; Group 2 included 66 patients who underwent LAR and additional bowel resection. The control group included 71 AOC patients who did not required bowel resection. RESULTS: In the subgroup of patients with no gross residual disease (NGR), there were no differences in OS between Groups 1 and 2. In the subgroup of "optimally" (tumors <1 cm) debulked patients, Group 1 patients had a higher median OS than Group 2 patients. Additionally, there was no difference between Groups 1 and 2 as far as the number of severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple bowel resections seem to improve OS in patients when NGR is achieved but should be avoided when complete resection is not possible.