Magee-Womens Hospital

CONTEXT: Tamoxifen is approved for the reduction of breast cancer risk, and raloxifene has demonstrated a reduced risk of breast cancer in trials of older women with osteoporosis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative effects and safety of raloxifene and tamoxifen on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene trial, a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted beginning July 1, 1999, in nearly 200 clinical centers throughout North America, with final analysis initiated after at least 327 incident invasive breast cancers were diagnosed. Patients were 19,747 postmenopausal women of mean age 58.5 years with increased 5-year breast cancer risk (mean risk, 4.03% [SD, 2.17%]). Data reported are based on a cutoff date of December 31, 2005. INTERVENTION: Oral tamoxifen (20 mg/d) or raloxifene (60 mg/d) over 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of invasive breast cancer, uterine cancer, noninvasive breast cancer, bone fractures, thromboembolic events. RESULTS: There were 163 cases of invasive breast cancer in women assigned to tamoxifen and 168 in those assigned to raloxifene (incidence, 4.30 per 1000 vs 4.41 per 1000; risk ratio [RR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.28). There were fewer cases of noninvasive breast cancer in the tamoxifen group (57 cases) than in the raloxifene group (80 cases) (incidence, 1.51 vs 2.11 per 1000; RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.98-2.00). There were 36 cases of uterine cancer with tamoxifen and 23 with raloxifene (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.35-1.08). No differences were found for other invasive cancer sites, for ischemic heart disease events, or for stroke. Thromboembolic events occurred less often in the raloxifene group (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.91). The number of osteoporotic fractures in the groups was similar. There were fewer cataracts (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92) and cataract surgeries (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99) in the women taking raloxifene. There was no difference in the total number of deaths (101 vs 96 for tamoxifen vs raloxifene) or in causes of death. CONCLUSIONS: Raloxifene is as effective as tamoxifen in reducing the risk of invasive breast cancer and has a lower risk of thromboembolic events and cataracts but a nonstatistically significant higher risk of noninvasive breast cancer. The risk of other cancers, fractures, ischemic heart disease, and stroke is similar for both drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003906.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer have a poor prognosis. Sacituzumab govitecan is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an antibody targeting the human trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2), which is expressed in the majority of breast cancers, coupled to SN-38 (topoisomerase I inhibitor) through a proprietary hydrolyzable linker. METHODS: In this randomized, phase 3 trial, we evaluated sacituzumab govitecan as compared with single-agent chemotherapy of the physician's choice (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine) in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (as determined by blinded independent central review) among patients without brain metastases. RESULTS: A total of 468 patients without brain metastases were randomly assigned to receive sacituzumab govitecan (235 patients) or chemotherapy (233 patients). The median age was 54 years; all the patients had previous use of taxanes. The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3 to 6.3; 166 events) with sacituzumab govitecan and 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.5 to 2.6; 150 events) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.52; P<0.001). The median overall survival was 12.1 months (95% CI, 10.7 to 14.0) with sacituzumab govitecan and 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.8 to 7.7) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.59; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with an objective response was 35% with sacituzumab govitecan and 5% with chemotherapy. The incidences of key treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51% with sacituzumab govitecan and 33% with chemotherapy), leukopenia (10% and 5%), diarrhea (10% and <1%), anemia (8% and 5%), and febrile neutropenia (6% and 2%). There were three deaths owing to adverse events in each group; no deaths were considered to be related to sacituzumab govitecan treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with sacituzumab govitecan than with single-agent chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Myelosuppression and diarrhea were more frequent with sacituzumab govitecan. (Funded by Immunomedics; ASCENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02574455; EudraCT number, 2017-003019-21.).

Table: of ContentsA. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Updated US consensus guidelines for management of cervical screening abnormalities are needed to accommodate the 3 available cervical screening strategies: primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening, cotesting with HPV testing and cervical cytology, and cervical cytology alone. New data indicate that a patient's risk of developing cervical precancer or cancer can be estimated using current screening test results and previous screening test and biopsy results, while considering personal factors such as age and immunosuppression. Routine screening applies only to asymptomatic individuals who do not require surveillance for prior abnormal screening results. The 2012 consensus guidelines were the first to be based on the principle of equal management for equal risk, specifically, the risk of a patient developing cervical cancer, estimated by the surrogate end point of the 5-year risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 (CIN 3) or more severe diagnoses (CIN 3+), regardless of which test combinations yielded this risk level. Introduction of risk-based guidelines in 2012 was a conceptual breakthrough, but the recommendations retained a continued reliance on complicated algorithms and insufficiently incorporated screening history. With a more nuanced understanding of how previous results affect risk, and more variables to consider, the 2019 guidelines further align management recommendations with current understanding of HPV natural history and cervical carcinogenesis. More frequent surveillance, colposcopy, and treatment are recommended for patients at progressively higher risk, whereas those at lower risk can defer colposcopy, undergo follow-up at longer surveillance intervals, and, when at sufficiently low risk, return to routine screening. Clearly defined risk thresholds to guide management are designed to continue functioning appropriately when population-level prevalence of CIN 3+ decreases because of HPV vaccination and also as new screening and triage tests are introduced. The revised guidelines provide a framework for incorporating new data and technologies as ongoing incremental recommendation revisions, minimizing the time needed to implement changes that are beneficial to patient care. B. INTRODUCTION This is the fourth American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)-sponsored consensus guidelines for management of cervical cancer screening abnormalities, after the original consensus conferences in 20011 and subsequent updates in 20062 and 2012.3 An interim guidance publication providing management recommendations for primary HPV screening was released in 2015.4This document updates and replaces all previous guidance. The key difference between 2019 guidelines and previous versions is the change from primarily test results–based algorithms (e.g., “Colposcopy is recommended for patients with HPV-positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US], low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL],” etc.) to primarily “risk-based” guidelines (e.g., “Colposcopy is recommended for any combination of history and current test results yielding a 4.0% or of CIN for of risk for combinations of current screening test results and screening history from a of more patients for more a at of risk are in the by The of risk to and in data from screening and those with abnormalities, can be by risk using to in and to a recommended to routine screening, surveillance with testing at or intervals, colposcopy, or of the be and of the abnormalities are using risk in and abnormalities are the consensus recommendations in are based on risk, not results. of colposcopy, or surveillance be based on a patient's risk of CIN 3+ by a combination of current results and history The current test results management recommendations on the history of test results. Colposcopy can be for HPV testing or cotesting at is recommended for patients with screening abnormalities HPV with low risk of CIN 3+ (e.g., low-grade abnormalities after a screening HPV test or 3) for treatment is treatment treatment was for patients with cytology in the 2012 this guidance is patients or defined as treatment biopsy CIN is when the risk of CIN 3+ is and is for those with between and treatment is for patients or with squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology and testing for HPV HPV and or patients with HPV-positive cytology regardless of HPV be when considering for patients with the of treatment on treatment is to treatment for (CIN or CIN 3) in the is recommended for in is to treatment for CIN based on recommendations for CIN or CIN 3 and (CIN primary HPV screening regardless of triage testing from the (e.g., testing from the is recommended because the those cytology for HPV or the risk for CIN 3 and cancer, (e.g., with is when cytology results are HPV or testing is and testing of the is not the patient to surveillance with HPV testing or cotesting at for at is recommended after treatment and management of CIN CIN or surveillance at is for as as the patient's and to be are not by The 2012 guidelines recommended return to 5-year screening and not when screening New that risk for at with that patients return to risk with 5-year with cytology is only testing with HPV or cotesting is not is HPV testing for of precancer and is recommended more is recommended at when HPV testing or cotesting is recommended is recommended when are recommended for HPV or that are and for screening be for management to in the all HPV testing in this document to testing for HPV all management HPV and HPV tests for primary screening only be as a with cytology, data are available to of tests in The of data to a recommendation the patient's age and current test results, as that previous screening history is not of management guidance be is available on test results the and previous precancer treatment the results and history are designed to the patient's risk from data are available for the abnormal screening test results with abnormal screening test results with of a HPV test or surveillance of previous abnormal screening test results that not require (e.g., follow-up after HPV-positive cytology results, and follow-up surveillance tests after or after treatment or abnormalities (e.g., CIN The that HPV is for developing precancer and cancer as CIN which diagnoses of CIN and the 2019 data indicate that when a new abnormal screening test a HPV test or the the estimated risk of CIN 3+ is by cytology 3 of a new abnormal screening not a in The 2019 guidelines also that a to (e.g., using the or the Colposcopy low-grade or a patient's estimated risk of in the This patients with HPV-positive or at follow-up after a or low-grade to return for HPV or cotesting in more return to incorporating a patient's history of previous HPV tests and results and treatment of CIN 3+ while for patients with new HPV who are at lower are based on The first are new for whereas the are from the 2012 the 2012 guidelines are to management recommendations only when new management that management guidelines only to patients with current or previous abnormal screening test screening guidelines for individuals in the that are not for a screening are New 2019 testing is the for risk The testing is this document and to of primary HPV testing or HPV testing in with cervical cytology of HPV HPV and the of a patient's risk of CIN cytology from and can be when risk, lower and lower with HPV testing for risk The results of HPV tests or in with cytology are to guide recommendations that of follow-up and of for results. risk the 2019 management guidelines are based on HPV risk-based management is with of current results and history. patient's risk of or developing CIN 3+ is estimated based on current and previous results, as as history of previous precancer recommendations thresholds of of routine screening, or surveillance, colposcopy, or treatment to a risk a of risk for CIN The lower of risk the at which the management recommendation The for risk were the consensus were estimated for all combination of current results and history for which data were available at can be and of the can be using updates to new test as are and to for as more patients who HPV vaccination screening The of cervical cancer is with new technologies on the of new technologies are and risk from HPV vaccination is as and individuals age screening to consensus which are and not with the of the The 2019 guidelines a framework that of new technologies and consensus that new and be to patient care. for management the 2019 consensus in but as new tests available and more data the test combinations to thresholds at the 2019 consensus HPV vaccination in the or were low to incorporating HPV vaccination the 2019 management this is to change in the as more who lower CIN 3+ risk, the age of and data the of vaccination on the CIN 3+ risk with abnormal test The framework as data available and are new data can be while the This is to with guidance in the Colposcopy Colposcopy with biopsy the primary of patients are after a CIN grade or higher (CIN is not of CIN at is that be of all to at those at risk, defined as cytology, of HPV and a or and a are not recommended and patients with a can be that CIN is not the Colposcopy the for when the is but any of or is 2012 primary of screening and management is cancer and treatment of cervical population-level indicate that and from cervical cancer as and treatment of cervical abnormalities defined as CIN and treatment of the grade of (CIN the for previous and the primary of the 2019 management a of the of this in the is of cervical cancer to and patient's risk of or developing CIN 3+ is estimated based on current and previous results, as as history of previous precancer recommendations are by risk of routine screening, or surveillance, colposcopy, or treatment to a risk risk of risk for CIN are defined by that were the consensus to all individuals with a to and with a individuals who were in individuals of and and to be not the primary of the 2019 management recommendations are also for patients who with of the and who a previous of CIN CIN CIN of the was for precancer treatment or management for equal and current test results are to a patient's current and risk of CIN are regardless of the combination of to the and the cancer with and all cervical is not to cervical cancer can The 2019 guidelines are designed to cervical cancer and from and by patients to current and of CIN patients require follow-up to of CIN whereas patients require tests and to asymptomatic patients that require management of abnormal cervical screening test results. with such as abnormal or or a require testing as this be a of This cervical cytology, colposcopy, and or all and is in those which are not by the 2019 are for in the management in with follow-up of colposcopy, or of the between cancer risk, and and The and a of in to the of this with the previous and 2012 risk data and for the consensus The the consensus to and the in the were and to patient and to cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal results of the and, for to consensus from the in that were previous consensus test (e.g., and the for the 2019 guidelines were with the of consensus The treatment which risk of CIN 3+ treatment as as The the for The surveillance a of at recommended for routine screening with HPV primary testing or cotesting and also when patients return to routine screening. surveillance those with abnormal screening results not (e.g., HPV-positive for or after with low-grade results, or after treatment for The risk factors that change a patient's estimated risk or on and immunosuppression. The to management and continue to as the 2019 guidelines are The new technologies and technologies to The and for to and the the guidelines and the were of to of and of patient from 2019 to data and guidelines for The consensus was by a by the and was by a of and the guidelines a the guidelines a and of patient and a consensus to and a the consensus in of CIN 3+ as for the management CIN 3+ as the surrogate for cancer The of CIN 3+ as in guidelines CIN and the of cervical cancer that are in screening management guidelines CIN 3+ risk at the time point for the for and treatment of CIN whereas surveillance recommendations 5-year was as of cancer because cancer is in the and risk is by that are in screening at first screening, of or not by screening, or CIN 3+ was of CIN because is a more the HPV in CIN 3+ more that of cervical the of in CIN and CIN in the of The of CIN 3+ as CIN of to cancer with HPV and and those in patients higher cancer and those in for cervical are in in the The and the a for of squamous to the for cervical the CIN is and data to this of guidelines on CIN is of the is but not to CIN to guidelines on a data results of cytology, HPV colposcopy, and follow-up from which cotesting as in The data continue to be the data in the for risk of combinations of HPV testing and the 2019 were to that results are to patients of and were using screening and follow-up data from a HPV and the for and and Cervical a that and The in of abnormal screening results and the prevalence of CIN the that the of CIN 3+ for the combination of current results and screening history were in that the risk for the of CIN 3+ with screening test combinations the of patients from data the higher or lower of CIN 3+ to factors to screening and HPV patients with test results and screening history combinations CIN 3+ risk, regardless of or of of how of CIN 3+ were for the combinations of test results, of tests are in the for combination of and current test results, the risk of CIN 3+ was estimated using which of of CIN 3+ at the time of the current testing using a and CIN 3+ at subsequent testing using a are designed to and in this that are only available for patients to that in the of screening or abnormal screening tests that were not for not be in this that the CIN 3+ is at but the time of of CIN 3+ be as is asymptomatic and between testing are designed to provide risk the data a (e.g., of to combination of current test results and screening history recommended management was by first and 5-year risk of CIN The estimated risk was with the to management the principle of management for equal HPV-positive and cytology of CIN 3+ and are combinations of test results, patients CIN 3+ to risk with a combination of previous and consensus were to the and of were using the that for previous consensus guidelines of were to be to a of and by the new technologies using the to risk for the and risk from the point are defined as of the risk for the recommended management on the of the and 5-year risk (e.g., and surveillance from and risk from are recommendations a management because the risk of a (e.g., biopsy in primary data previous guidelines or consensus were 3 to a recommendations are of guidelines from which were not considering from of and primary data from the the and of this and recommendations based on of data and a of and the This the from to risk-based the primary on which management recommendations are based and the in which are abnormal screening results and subsequent management the recommendations are based on estimated and by data from can the 2019 guidelines to patients the in or by using or designed to of the available at a to recommendations for management is based on factors risk recommendations are based on and to risk This how patient risk is a current results and history the CIN 3+ risk is this risk is or management or treatment is the risk is the 5-year CIN 3+ risk is to patients return in or The 5-year return the risk for a patient after a screening test using HPV testing or cotesting in the for in is recommended by screening with at or this are recommended to routine screening at 5-year with testing The return the risk for a patient after a cervical cytology in the for in 3 is recommended by screening with at or this but the 5-year are recommended to testing in 3 return is recommended for patients with the but the for The the risk for a patient after HPV-positive or screening in the for is recommended in the 2012 with at or this but the treatment are recommended to The treatment or the risk for a patient after HPV-positive atypical squamous cells cytology screening in the with at or this but the treatment are recommended to from to between with and biopsy or treatment treatment is defined as treatment The treatment the risk for a patient after HPV cytology screening in the is that patients with at or this treatment are or the of treatment on that cancer patients with (CIN who are recommended to and testing at to of Introduction is defined as follow-up testing at a that recommended for routine screening with HPV primary testing or cotesting is recommended for patients risk of CIN 3+ based on current test results and screening history is higher the risk for the screening but lower the risk at which is and which are as as after a abnormal surveillance at of to the 5-year risk of CIN 3+ as the estimated risk when surveillance are defined in and in thresholds are based on the principle of equal management for equal and were designed to current screening and surveillance which are as a of and the 2012 of and 3 were for surveillance, with return to routine screening at and patients are with intervals, and of not a to change intervals, are that for in patients (e.g., with and testing at is patients estimated 5-year CIN 3+ risk of based on history and current test results, return to routine screening at 5-year using testing is recommended the principle of equal management for equal risk, this to the 5-year CIN 3+ risk after screening testing or in the in for guidelines a 5-year 5-year CIN 3+ in the after a HPV test and are and that cytology is recommended at 5-year patients estimated 5-year CIN 3+ risk of or but based on history and current test results, testing in 3 with testing is recommended the principle of equal management for equal risk, the return to the 5-year CIN 3+ risk after cervical cytology in the for guidelines a 5-year CIN 3+ after a cytology HPV testing from in the to in the New HPV to estimated in the of the and Cervical was for the surveillance is recommended for patients risk between the and 5-year follow-up with the 2012 patients with a low-grade (e.g., HPV-positive or by a with results of CIN in by a follow-up HPV test or the return with previous patients with screening in the of history can return at 3 CIN 3+ risk This how a patient with a low-grade screening be based on risk The screening to risk Colposcopy of CIN a 5-year risk of the return a HPV-positive risk of the patient a abnormal at the is the test is return in 3 is not because risk are not patients estimated risk of CIN 3+ based on history and current results that is the for and the follow-up at testing in with testing is recommended surveillance follow-up for those between the for and with the 2012 consensus follow-up at is recommended after screening tests or with previous screening history and surveillance is also recommended after with of (CIN or by a low-grade as HPV-positive HPV-positive or HPV-positive New data for guidelines that the risk of CIN 3+ is after a HPV primary screening test or or with biopsy of CIN on lower CIN 3+ surveillance, not colposcopy, is recommended for patients with new HPV-positive or results after a HPV test or screening or CIN the a previous cytology not subsequent risk a cytology is not to subsequent management to of Colposcopy patients estimated risk of of CIN 3+ of 4.0% or based on history and current results, to is recommended The were to the for to recommended by the for the was based on the risk of CIN 3+ to the of a the be to 2012 recommendations that are as of and The consensus were the first to the patients with and HPV-positive to This recommendation in and The and that risk (CIN 3+ patients to from to data were and was that CIN 3+ risk in 3 test results as cytology atypical or low-grade results or HPV-positive cytology with previous screening history and HPV-positive cytology at 4.0% and combinations for which not cytology, cytology, and cytology with previous screening The of a CIN 3+ risk was a of and in a with screening to of HPV-positive patients with or cytology, but not the of patients with HPV-positive the 4.0% for colposcopy, the CIN 3+ risk were with those from with more in the New HPV and Cervical and the The The 4.0% risk for patients with at previous test because surveillance is recommended for low-grade abnormalities or in patients screening was a HPV test or a routine screening This the CIN 3+ risk to to a recommendation of surveillance of of the 4.0% the of patients for of screening from estimated using the 2012 to using the 2019 to the 4.0% results with cancer risk higher CIN 3+ risk, are in to of The primary of treatment is cancer or of (CIN to the of the only of CIN the risk of developing cancer was as as for not be estimated at because of of treatment is recommended as as after the of a the CIN 3+ risk was when the treatment CIN The guidelines CIN and CIN 3 as with previous the for treatment or CIN in and considering treatment with a with patients the and can be in those at risk of CIN for treatment and personal and The age of or for treatment was as of and to low cancer and of of in this age patients or with estimated risk of CIN 3+ of or based on history and current results, treatment using previous biopsy is but with biopsy is the 2012 treatment biopsy was management for with cytology treatment are with CIN 3+ in to of The data HPV-positive cytology of CIN 3+ and CIN of and the treatment is cytology that is HPV CIN 3+ of CIN of and cancer of the and Cervical with HPV-positive cytology of who were defined as screening in CIN 3+ risk of and CIN of risk not on the for that the patients for CIN 3+ a low of patients or with estimated risk of CIN 3+ or and based on history and current results, treatment using previous biopsy or with and biopsy are The 2012 guidelines treatment patients who cytology of HPV the data the to patients with the results and CIN 3+ HPV-positive HPV-positive and HPV-positive this patients undergo for CIN 3+ to with abnormal cervical cancer screening results management management of abnormal screening test return for surveillance of a previous abnormal that not to (e.g., with of to continue surveillance or to of the biopsy results with of to or surveillance test results at the return for surveillance after a biopsy CIN and follow-up after treatment of or are based on of and CIN 3+ diagnoses in of current and results. of the by which patients are of the risk and recommendations based on the are in the by The is to the of risk which are available of patients with a combination of results and personal of the available risk of is in to of the 2019 guidelines management of patients by the consensus also that to results and of on the of a for of of the is to to the guidance by the be for as recommended by the guidelines when the and the of the of is with CIN or CIN is a risk of cervical results when is a CIN on not be to (CIN and management is recommended to a by CIN or CIN to the by the guidelines This CIN can (e.g., to of CIN in patients for management is is also for surveillance and of cervical precancer that on CIN and CIN 3 end is for to diagnoses of (CIN from (CIN 3) that are with the end for current consensus recommendations were on the of a for of squamous of the by the of American and the The of the guidelines a that and and recommendations for the of to of is a of HPV and and can guidelines are based on CIN 3 end the of a cervical are data to risk with end that CIN and CIN 3 the is and that of cervical and Updated of HPV primary HPV screening is of triage test (e.g., for all HPV tests regardless of is tests for HPV primary HPV screening test results are HPV or HPV and triage testing from the is not for testing is for HPV or HPV is and triage testing is not the colposcopy, of triage test (e.g., at the is recommended The US the HPV test in and the HPV in for primary HPV testing for screening for patients or tests and are for HPV of primary HPV screening in the as is more screening with cytology and to and with lower screening with and HPV test results the risk of CIN 3 and are recommended for all test results (e.g., with biopsy for and low-grade cytology and treatment for cytology that is for HPV This replaces interim guidance for the management of a for HPV primary screening, which recommended to for HPV test results for HPV HPV and of cytology for results to HPV The risk of in patients with HPV and cytology the treatment of patients be the for treatment biopsy treatment is only cytology is cytology is recommended for all HPV-positive primary screening results, regardless of HPV testing from the as the HPV test is not patients to this of triage test (e.g., is recommended at the time of to provide further for risk-based management (e.g., HPV cytology is treatment be CIN is not on a test with (e.g., cytology when is as with a test with HPV more risk-based management of on HPV in HPV be for management to for screening, are data to of the HPV in the for in screening and of for but are for and HPV for screening be to when HPV test for be in management in the of are data to of the (e.g., as in and of HPV as as HPV HPV are for testing with cytology to as whereas a of HPV also for primary HPV testing of as or patients of all with all of and when atypical cells are is recommended regardless of HPV test is recommended at in management in triage by HPV testing is not and triage by cytology is is recommended in with and in patients or with all of and is also recommended for patients at risk of neoplasia based on (e.g., abnormal or patients with atypical cells to and is with at the time of was and is with is recommended This the of on cervical patients with cytology not or atypical cells not in (CIN or is not cotesting at and is are cotesting at 3 is any test is is recommended CIN or CIN 3 but lesion is for patients with cytology atypical or cells not management be to the 2019 guidelines for the lesion patients with atypical or cells or cytology, is not a is The in this provide with the is This follow-up management that after the in 3 cells on cytology is a HPV test results, when for HPV can be of higher risk of CIN is recommended for all patients regardless of HPV is and between are because of of the for of cells can be with and as as of the of the and are also in who test HPV the or cytology is of or this are recommended when or not results are with a of in to CIN in and cancer in to the HPV-positive CIN 3+ risk of and CIN 3+ risk of with results of HPV-positive neoplasia or CIN 3+ risk of whereas HPV-positive CIN 3+ of cancer is in patients risk the prevalence of cancer is the of when patients with cytology and or a HPV test screening or primary HPV in to is recommended using HPV testing is not recommended cytology, treatment to or when a is is patients and who are and cytology and a HPV test cytology in to or is a HPV test with is for HPV or HPV for is recommended This the in management of that to HPV testing and HPV testing is for HPV and but for HPV was from 2012 to and was to change cotesting is a HPV test in the of cytology a HPV test from the as the be for testing when the cytology is for the HPV in the of not which is of that testing is not recommended for to after a HPV results on HPV tests that are not for primary cervical cancer screening not be in the of cytology a HPV from a with on cytology not be as primary HPV test and be on patients to with screening cytology and

BACKGROUND: The proportion of women who attempt vaginal delivery after prior cesarean delivery has decreased largely because of concern about safety. The absolute and relative risks associated with a trial of labor in women with a history of cesarean delivery, as compared with elective repeated cesarean delivery without labor, are uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a prospective four-year observational study of all women with a singleton gestation and a prior cesarean delivery at 19 academic medical centers. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared between women who underwent a trial of labor and women who had an elective repeated cesarean delivery without labor. RESULTS: Vaginal delivery was attempted by 17,898 women, and 15,801 women underwent elective repeated cesarean delivery without labor. Symptomatic uterine rupture occurred in 124 women who underwent a trial of labor (0.7 percent). Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy occurred in no infants whose mothers underwent elective repeated cesarean delivery and in 12 infants born at term whose mothers underwent a trial of labor (P<0.001). Seven of these cases of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy followed uterine rupture (absolute risk, 0.46 per 1000 women at term undergoing a trial of labor), including two neonatal deaths. The rate of endometritis was higher in women undergoing a trial of labor than in women undergoing repeated elective cesarean delivery (2.9 percent vs. 1.8 percent), as was the rate of blood transfusion (1.7 percent vs. 1.0 percent). The frequency of hysterectomy and of maternal death did not differ significantly between groups (0.2 percent vs. 0.3 percent, and 0.02 percent vs. 0.04 percent, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery is associated with a greater perinatal risk than is elective repeated cesarean delivery without labor, although absolute risks are low. This information is relevant for counseling women about their choices after a cesarean section.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize published data about abdominal sacrocolpopexy and to highlight areas about which data are lacking. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a literature search on MEDLINE using Ovid and PubMed, from January,1966 to January, 2004, using search terms "sacropexy," "sacrocolpopexy," "sacral colpopexy," "colpopexy," "sacropexy," "colposacropexy," "abdominal sacrocolpopexy" "pelvic organ prolapse and surgery," and "vaginal vault prolapse or surgery" and included articles with English-language abstracts. We examined reference lists of published articles to identify other articles not found on the electronic search. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We examined all studies identified in our search that provided any outcome data on sacrocolpopexy. Because of the substantial heterogeneity of outcome measures and follow-up intervals in case studies, we did not apply meta-analytic techniques to the data. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Follow-up duration for most studies ranged from 6 months to 3 years. The success rate, when defined as lack of apical prolapse postoperatively, ranged from 78-100% and when defined as no postoperative prolapse, from 58-100%. The median reoperation rates for pelvic organ prolapse and for stress urinary incontinence in the studies that reported these outcomes were 4.4% (range 0-18.2%) and 4.9% (range 1.2% to 30.9%), respectively. The overall rate of mesh erosion was 3.4% (70 of 2,178). Some reports found more mesh erosions when concomitant total hysterectomy was done, whereas other reports did not. There were no data to either support or refute the contentions that concomitant culdoplasty or paravaginal repair decreased the risk of failure. Most authors recommended burying the graft under the peritoneum to attempt to decrease the risk of bowel obstruction; despite this, the median rate (when reported) of small bowel obstruction requiring surgery was 1.1% (range 0.6% to 8.6%). Few studies rigorously assessed pelvic symptoms, bowel function, or sexual function. CONCLUSION: Sacrocolpopexy is a reliable procedure that effectively and consistently resolves vaginal vault prolapse. Patients should be counseled about the low, but present risk, of reoperation for prolapse, stress incontinence, and complications. Prospective trials are needed to understand the effect of sacrocolpopexy on functional outcomes.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are a recently discovered class of endogenous, small, noncoding RNAs that regulate about 30% of the encoding genes of the human genome. However, the role of miRNAs in vascular disease is currently completely unknown. Using microarray analysis, we demonstrated for the first time that miRNAs are aberrantly expressed in the vascular walls after balloon injury. The aberrantly expressed miRNAs were further confirmed by Northern blot and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Modulating an aberrantly overexpressed miRNA, miR-21, via antisense-mediated depletion (knock-down) had a significant negative effect on neointimal lesion formation. In vitro, the expression level of miR-21 in dedifferentiated vascular smooth muscle cells was significantly higher than that in fresh isolated differentiated cells. Depletion of miR-21 resulted in decreased cell proliferation and increased cell apoptosis in a dose-dependent manner. MiR-21-mediated cellular effects were further confirmed in vivo in balloon-injured rat carotid arteries. Western blot analysis demonstrated that PTEN and Bcl-2 were involved in miR-21-mediated cellular effects. The results suggest that miRNAs are novel regulatory RNAs for neointimal lesion formation. MiRNAs may be a new therapeutic target for proliferative vascular diseases such as atherosclerosis, postangioplasty restenosis, transplantation arteriopathy, and stroke.

PURPOSE: To determine whether adding shear-wave (SW) elastographic features could improve accuracy of ultrasonographic (US) assessment of breast masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2008 to September 2010, 958 women consented to repeat standard breast US supplemented by quantitative SW elastographic examination in this prospective multicenter institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol. B-mode Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) features and assessments were recorded. SW elastographic evaluation (mean, maximum, and minimum elasticity of stiffest portion of mass and surrounding tissue; lesion-to-fat elasticity ratio; ratio of SW elastographic-to-B-mode lesion diameter or area; SW elastographic lesion shape and homogeneity) was performed. Qualitative color SW elastographic stiffness was assessed independently. Nine hundred thirty-nine masses were analyzable; 102 BI-RADS category 2 masses were assumed to be benign; reference standard was available for 837 category 3 or higher lesions. Considering BI-RADS category 4a or higher as test positive for malignancy, effect of SW elastographic features on area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity after reclassifying category 3 and 4a masses was determined. RESULTS: Median participant age was 50 years; 289 of 939 (30.8%) masses were malignant (median mass size, 12 mm). B-mode BI-RADS AUC was 0.950; eight of 303 (2.6%) BI-RADS category 3 masses, 18 of 193 (9.3%) category 4a lesions, 41 of 97 (42%) category 4b lesions, 42 of 57 (74%) category 4c lesions, and 180 of 187 (96.3%) category 5 lesions were malignant. By using visual color stiffness to selectively upgrade category 3 and lack of stiffness to downgrade category 4a masses, specificity improved from 61.1% (397 of 650) to 78.5% (510 of 650) (P<.001); AUC increased to 0.962 (P=.005). Oval shape on SW elastographic images and quantitative maximum elasticity of 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less improved specificity (69.4% [451 of 650] and 77.4% [503 of 650], P<.001 for both), without significant improvement in sensitivity or AUC. CONCLUSION: Adding SW elastographic features to BI-RADS feature analysis improved specificity of breast US mass assessment without loss of sensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Granulosa-cell tumors (GCTs) are the most common type of malignant ovarian sex cord-stromal tumor (SCST). The pathogenesis of these tumors is unknown. Moreover, their histopathological diagnosis can be challenging, and there is no curative treatment beyond surgery. METHODS: We analyzed four adult-type GCTs using whole-transcriptome paired-end RNA sequencing. We identified putative GCT-specific mutations that were present in at least three of these samples but were absent from the transcriptomes of 11 epithelial ovarian tumors, published human genomes, and databases of single-nucleotide polymorphisms. We confirmed these variants by direct sequencing of complementary DNA and genomic DNA. We then analyzed additional tumors and matched normal genomic DNA, using a combination of direct sequencing, analyses of restriction-fragment-length polymorphisms, and TaqMan assays. RESULTS: All four index GCTs had a missense point mutation, 402C-->G (C134W), in FOXL2, a gene encoding a transcription factor known to be critical for granulosa-cell development. The FOXL2 mutation was present in 86 of 89 additional adult-type GCTs (97%), in 3 of 14 thecomas (21%), and in 1 of 10 juvenile-type GCTs (10%). The mutation was absent in 49 SCSTs of other types and in 329 unrelated ovarian or breast tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Whole-transcriptome sequencing of four GCTs identified a single, recurrent somatic mutation (402C-->G) in FOXL2 that was present in almost all morphologically identified adult-type GCTs. Mutant FOXL2 is a potential driver in the pathogenesis of adult-type GCTs.

BACKGROUND: Midurethral slings are increasingly used for the treatment of stress incontinence, but there are limited data comparing types of slings and associated complications. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized equivalence trial comparing outcomes with retropubic and transobturator midurethral slings in women with stress incontinence. The primary outcome was treatment success at 12 months according to both objective criteria (a negative stress test, a negative pad test, and no retreatment) and subjective criteria (self-reported absence of symptoms, no leakage episodes recorded, and no retreatment). The predetermined equivalence margin was +/-12 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 597 women were randomly assigned to a study group; 565 (94.6%) completed the 12-month assessment. The rates of objectively assessed treatment success were 80.8% in the retropubic-sling group and 77.7% in the transobturator-sling group (3.0 percentage-point difference; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.6 to 9.6). The rates of subjectively assessed success were 62.2% and 55.8%, respectively (6.4 percentage-point difference; 95% CI, -1.6 to 14.3). The rates of voiding dysfunction requiring surgery were 2.7% in those who received retropubic slings and 0% in those who received transobturator slings (P=0.004), and the respective rates of neurologic symptoms were 4.0% and 9.4% (P=0.01). There were no significant differences between groups in postoperative urge incontinence, satisfaction with the results of the procedure, or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-month rates of objectively assessed success of treatment for stress incontinence with the retropubic and transobturator approaches met the prespecified criteria for equivalence; the rates of subjectively assessed success were similar between groups but did not meet the criteria for equivalence. Differences in the complications associated with the two procedures should be discussed with patients who are considering surgical treatment for incontinence. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00325039.)

PURPOSE: Brain metastases develop in one third of patients with advanced HER2+ breast cancer. Effective therapy for patients with central nervous system (CNS) progression after cranial radiation is extremely limited and represents a major clinical challenge. Lapatinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor/HER2 inhibitor, was associated with regressions of CNS lesions in a small phase 2 trial. The current study was done to further evaluate the CNS activity of lapatinib. The study was later amended to allow patients who progressed on lapatinib the option of receiving lapatinib plus capecitabine. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients had HER2+ breast cancer, progressive brain metastases, prior trastuzumab, and cranial radiotherapy. The primary end point was CNS objective response, defined as >or=50% volumetric reduction of CNS lesion(s) in the absence of increasing steroid use, progressive neurologic signs and symptoms, or progressive extra-CNS disease. RESULTS: Two-hundred and forty-two patients entered the study. CNS objective responses to lapatinib were observed in 6% of patients. In an exploratory analysis, 21% of patients experienced a >or=20% volumetric reduction in their CNS lesions. An association was observed between volumetric reduction and improvement in progression-free survival and neurologic signs and symptoms. Of the 50 evaluable patients who entered the lapatinib plus capecitabine extension, 20% experienced a CNS objective response and 40% experienced a >or=20% volumetric reduction in their CNS lesions. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the modest CNS antitumor activity of lapatinib. Additional responses were observed with the combination of lapatinib and capecitabine. Further studies of lapatinib-based regimens for CNS metastases from HER2+ breast cancer are warranted.

Abstract Rosai-Dorfman-Destombes disease (RDD) is a rare non–Langerhans cell histiocytosis characterized by accumulation of activated histiocytes within affected tissues. RDD, which now belongs to the R group of the 2016 revised histiocytosis classification, is a widely heterogeneous entity with a range of clinical phenotypes occurring in isolation or in association with autoimmune or malignant diseases. Recent studies have found NRAS, KRAS, MAP2K1, and ARAF mutations in lesional tissues, raising the possibility of a clonal origin in some forms of RDD. More than 1000 reports have been published in the English literature; however, there is a lack of consensus regarding approach for the clinical management of RDD. Although in most cases RDD can be observed or treated with local therapies, some patients with refractory or multifocal disease experience morbidity and mortality. Here we provide the first consensus multidisciplinary recommendations for the diagnosis and management of RDD. These recommendations were discussed at the 32nd Histiocyte Society Meeting by an international group of academic clinicians and pathologists with expertise in RDD. We include guidelines for clinical, laboratory, pathologic, and radiographic evaluation of patients with RDD together with treatment recommendations based on clinical experience and review of the literature.

PURPOSE NALA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01808573 ) is a randomized, active-controlled, phase III trial comparing neratinib, an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), plus capecitabine (N+C) against lapatinib, a reversible dual TKI, plus capecitabine (L+C) in patients with centrally confirmed HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with ≥ 2 previous HER2-directed MBC regimens. METHODS Patients, including those with stable, asymptomatic CNS disease, were randomly assigned 1:1 to neratinib (240 mg once every day) plus capecitabine (750 mg/m 2 twice a day 14 d/21 d) with loperamide prophylaxis, or to lapatinib (1,250 mg once every day) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 twice a day 14 d/21 d). Coprimary end points were centrally confirmed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). NALA was considered positive if either primary end point was met (α split between end points). Secondary end points were time to CNS disease intervention, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), clinical benefit rate, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS A total of 621 patients from 28 countries were randomly assigned (N+C, n = 307; L+C, n = 314). Centrally reviewed PFS was improved with N+C (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.93; stratified log-rank P = .0059). The OS HR was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07; P = .2098). Fewer interventions for CNS disease occurred with N+C versus L+C (cumulative incidence, 22.8% v 29.2%; P = .043). ORRs were N+C 32.8% (95% CI, 27.1 to 38.9) and L+C 26.7% (95% CI, 21.5 to 32.4; P = .1201); median DoR was 8.5 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74; P = .0004). The most common all-grade adverse events were diarrhea (N+C 83% v L+C 66%) and nausea (53% v 42%). Discontinuation rates and HRQoL were similar between groups. CONCLUSION N+C significantly improved PFS and time to intervention for CNS disease versus L+C. No new N+C safety signals were observed.

BACKGROUND: Seizures occur in 1 to 2 percent of neonates admitted to an intensive care unit. The treatment is usually with either phenobarbital or phenytoin, but the efficacy of the two drugs has not been compared directly. METHODS: From 1990 to 1995, we studied 59 neonates with seizures that were confirmed by electroencephalography. The neonates were randomly assigned to receive either phenobarbital or phenytoin intravenously, at doses sufficient to achieve free plasma concentrations of 25 microg per milliliter for phenobarbital and 3 microg per milliliter for phenytoin. Neonates whose seizures were not controlled by the assigned drug were then treated with both drugs. Seizure control was assessed by electroencephalographic criteria. RESULTS: Seizures were controlled in 13 of the 30 neonates assigned to receive phenobarbital (43 percent) and 13 of the 29 neonates assigned to receive phenytoin (45 percent; P=1.00). When combined treatment is considered, seizure control was achieved in 17 (57 percent) of the neonates assigned to receive phenobarbital first and 18 (62 percent) of those assigned to receive phenytoin first (P=0.67). The severity of the seizures was a stronger predictor of the success of treatment than was the assigned agent. Neonates with mild seizures or with seizures that were decreasing in severity before treatment were more likely to have their seizures end, regardless of the treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: Phenobarbital and phenytoin are equally but incompletely effective as anticonvulsants in neonates. With either drug given alone, the seizures were controlled in fewer than half of the neonates.

BACKGROUND: Screening for aneuploid pregnancies is routinely performed after 15 weeks of gestation and has a sensitivity of approximately 65 percent, with a false positive rate of 5 percent. First-trimester markers of aneuploidy have been developed, but their use in combination has not been adequately evaluated in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study of screening for trisomies 21 and 18 among patients with pregnancies between 74 and 97 days of gestation, based on maternal age, maternal levels of free beta human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and ultrasonographic measurement of fetal nuchal translucency. A screening result was considered to be positive for trisomy 21 if the calculated risk was at least 1 in 270 pregnancies and positive for trisomy 18 if the risk was at least 1 in 150. RESULTS: Screening was completed in 8514 patients with singleton pregnancies. This approach to screening identified 85.2 percent of the 61 cases of Down's syndrome (95 percent confidence interval, 73.8 to 93.0), with a false positive rate of 9.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 8.8 to 10.1). At a false positive rate of 5 percent, the detection rate was 78.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 66.3 to 88.1). Screening identified 90.9 percent of the 11 cases of trisomy 18 (95 percent confidence interval, 58.7 to 99.8), with a 2 percent false positive rate. Among women 35 years of age or older, screening identified 89.8 percent of fetuses with trisomy 21, with a false positive rate of 15.2 percent, and 100 percent of fetuses with trisomy 18. CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester screening for trisomies 21 and 18 on the basis of maternal age, maternal levels of free beta human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein A, and measurement of fetal nuchal translucency has good sensitivity at an acceptable false positive rate.

PURPOSE: To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on breast cancer follow-up and management in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: An ASCO Expert Panel reviewed pertinent information from the literature through March 2006. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design. RESULTS: The evidence supports regular history, physical examination, and mammography as the cornerstone of appropriate breast cancer follow-up. All patients should have a careful history and physical examination performed by a physician experienced in the surveillance of cancer patients and in breast examination. Examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For those who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. Patients at high risk for familial breast cancer syndromes should be referred for genetic counseling. The use of CBCs, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scanning, magnetic resonance imaging, or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine breast cancer follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination. CONCLUSION: Careful history taking, physical examination, and regular mammography are recommended for appropriate detection of breast cancer recurrence.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and safety of the treatment of mild chronic hypertension (blood pressure, <160/100 mm Hg) during pregnancy are uncertain. Data are needed on whether a strategy of targeting a blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg reduces the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes without compromising fetal growth. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension and singleton fetuses at a gestational age of less than 23 weeks to receive antihypertensive medications recommended for use in pregnancy (active-treatment group) or to receive no such treatment unless severe hypertension (systolic pressure, ≥160 mm Hg; or diastolic pressure, ≥105 mm Hg) developed (control group). The primary outcome was a composite of preeclampsia with severe features, medically indicated preterm birth at less than 35 weeks' gestation, placental abruption, or fetal or neonatal death. The safety outcome was small-for-gestational-age birth weight below the 10th percentile for gestational age. Secondary outcomes included composites of serious neonatal or maternal complications, preeclampsia, and preterm birth. RESULTS: A total of 2408 women were enrolled in the trial. The incidence of a primary-outcome event was lower in the active-treatment group than in the control group (30.2% vs. 37.0%), for an adjusted risk ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.92; P<0.001). The percentage of small-for-gestational-age birth weights below the 10th percentile was 11.2% in the active-treatment group and 10.4% in the control group (adjusted risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.31; P = 0.76). The incidence of serious maternal complications was 2.1% and 2.8%, respectively (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.26), and the incidence of severe neonatal complications was 2.0% and 2.6% (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.30). The incidence of any preeclampsia in the two groups was 24.4% and 31.1%, respectively (risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.89), and the incidence of preterm birth was 27.5% and 31.4% (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: In pregnant women with mild chronic hypertension, a strategy of targeting a blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm Hg was associated with better pregnancy outcomes than a strategy of reserving treatment only for severe hypertension, with no increase in the risk of small-for-gestational-age birth weight. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CHAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02299414.).

BACKGROUND: Many surgical procedures are available for women with urinary stress incontinence, yet few randomized clinical trials have been conducted to provide a basis for treatment recommendations. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing two procedures--the pubovaginal sling, using autologous rectus fascia, and the Burch colposuspension--among women with stress incontinence. Women were eligible for the study if they had predominant symptoms associated with the condition, a positive stress test, and urethral hypermobility. The primary outcomes were success in terms of overall urinary-incontinence measures, which required a negative pad test, no urinary incontinence (as recorded in a 3-day diary), a negative cough and Valsalva stress test, no self-reported symptoms, and no retreatment for the condition, and success in terms of measures of stress incontinence specifically, which required only the latter three criteria. We also assessed postoperative urge incontinence, voiding dysfunction, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 655 women were randomly assigned to study groups: 326 to undergo the sling procedure and 329 to undergo the Burch procedure; 520 women (79%) completed the outcome assessment. At 24 months, success rates were higher for women who underwent the sling procedure than for those who underwent the Burch procedure, for both the overall category of success (47% vs. 38%, P=0.01) and the category specific to stress incontinence (66% vs. 49%, P<0.001). However, more women who underwent the sling procedure had urinary tract infections, difficulty voiding, and postoperative urge incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: The autologous fascial sling results in a higher rate of successful treatment of stress incontinence but also greater morbidity than the Burch colposuspension. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00064662 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .).

Abstract The goal of the study was to compare cardiovascular heart disease risk factors in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and matched control subjects. Women with PCOS have risk factors, including anovulation, hyperandrogenism, and insulin resistance, that suggest a male coronary heart disease risk-factor profile. A total of 206 women with PCOS were recruited by using records from a large reproductive endocrinology practice. A clinical diagnosis of PCOS was made if there was a history of chronic anovulation in association with either clinical evidence of androgen excess (hirsutism) or if total testosterone level was &gt;2 nm/L or the luteinizing hormone/follicle-stimulating hormone ratio was greater than 2. The overall response rate for cases was 76%. A control population was obtained by using a combination of area voters’ registration tapes and directories of households. A control subject was matched to each case subject by age±5 years, race, and neighborhood. The response rate for recruitment of the first or second eligible control subject was 83.6%. The average age at initial interview was 35.9±7.4 years for case and 37.2±7.8 years for control subjects. Women with PCOS had significantly increased cardiovascular disease risk factors compared with control women. These included increases in body mass index, insulin, and triglyceride levels ( P &lt;.001), decreased total HDL and HDL 2 levels ( P &lt;.01), and increased total cholesterol and fasting LDL levels, waist/hip ratio, and systolic blood pressure ( P &lt;.05). After controlling for age, body mass index, and other confounding variables, differences in total cholesterol, total HDL, HDL 2 , LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides were still significant between case and control subjects. These risk factors were especially elevated in PCOS women in the early premenopausal years compared with control women, indicating that women with PCOS should be monitored for early detection and considered for appropriate clinical interventions.

BACKGROUND: Germline truncating mutations in DICER1, an endoribonuclease in the RNase III family that is essential for processing microRNAs, have been observed in families with the pleuropulmonary blastoma-family tumor and dysplasia syndrome. Mutation carriers are at risk for nonepithelial ovarian tumors, notably sex cord-stromal tumors. METHODS: We sequenced the whole transcriptomes or exomes of 14 nonepithelial ovarian tumors and noted closely clustered mutations in the region of DICER1 encoding the RNase IIIb domain of DICER1 in four samples. We then sequenced this region of DICER1 in additional ovarian tumors and in certain other tumors and queried the effect of the mutations on the enzymatic activity of DICER1 using in vitro RNA cleavage assays. RESULTS: DICER1 mutations in the RNase IIIb domain were found in 30 of 102 nonepithelial ovarian tumors (29%), predominantly in Sertoli-Leydig cell tumors (26 of 43, or 60%), including 4 tumors with additional germline DICER1 mutations. These mutations were restricted to codons encoding metal-binding sites within the RNase IIIb catalytic centers, which are critical for microRNA interaction and cleavage, and were somatic in all 16 samples in which germline DNA was available for testing. We also detected mutations in 1 of 14 nonseminomatous testicular germ-cell tumors, in 2 of 5 embryonal rhabdomyosarcomas, and in 1 of 266 epithelial ovarian and endometrial carcinomas. The mutant DICER1 proteins had reduced RNase IIIb activity but retained RNase IIIa activity. CONCLUSIONS: Somatic missense mutations affecting the RNase IIIb domain of DICER1 are common in nonepithelial ovarian tumors. These mutations do not obliterate DICER1 function but alter it in specific cell types, a novel mechanism through which perturbation of microRNA processing may be oncogenic. (Funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute and others.).

BACKGROUND: Urodynamic studies are commonly performed in women before surgery for stress urinary incontinence, but there is no good evidence that they improve outcomes. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving women with uncomplicated, demonstrable stress urinary incontinence to compare outcomes after preoperative office evaluation and urodynamic tests or evaluation only. The primary outcome was treatment success at 12 months, defined as a reduction in the score on the Urogenital Distress Inventory of 70% or more and a response of "much better" or "very much better" on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The predetermined noninferiority margin was 11 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 630 women were randomly assigned to undergo office evaluation with urodynamic tests or evaluation only (315 per group); the proportion in whom treatment was successful was 76.9% in the urodynamic-testing group versus 77.2% in the evaluation-only group (difference, -0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -7.5 to 6.9), which was consistent with noninferiority. There were no significant between-group differences in secondary measures of incontinence severity, quality of life, patient satisfaction, rates of positive provocative stress tests, voiding dysfunction, or adverse events. Women who underwent urodynamic tests were significantly less likely to receive a diagnosis of overactive bladder and more likely to receive a diagnosis of voiding-phase dysfunction, but these changes did not lead to significant between-group differences in treatment selection or outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For women with uncomplicated, demonstrable stress urinary incontinence, preoperative office evaluation alone was not inferior to evaluation with urodynamic testing for outcomes at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00803959.).